CD: Automatism Flashcards
Automatism (non-insane automatism)
Defined by Lord Denning in Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland (legal test):
‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking’
It’s where the D is unable to control their movements because their muscles reacted without any control of the mind, therefore there’s no mens rea.
- The evidential burden of proof is on the defence to prove automatism. If successful, it results in a complete acquittal
- The legal burden of proof is on the prosecution
Requirements for automatism
There must be an external factor - this is key in proving automatism and differentiating from insanity
- E.g. struck on head by object, slipping on ice, overcome by sudden illness, coughing/hiccups, temporary loss of control due to radical event eg attacked by swarm of bees
There must be a total loss of control - any impaired, reduced or partial control will invalidate the defence
Self induced automatism
Automatism will not be successful as a defence if the D knows their conduct will bring about an automatic state
- In such situations, D will have a defence to specific intent crimes, but not basic intent crimes as they voluntarily placed themselves in that position
The exception to this is where the D does not realize their self-induced actions will cause them automatic state and they were not reckless
Reform for automatism defence
The Law Commission published a Discussion paper, ‘Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism’ in 2013, which proposed:
- replacing the existing common law automatism defence with a new defence of automatism triggered ‘only where there is a total loss of capacity to control one’s actions which is not caused by a recognized medical condition and for which the accused was not culpably responsible’
- D’s who raised the defence due to a recognized medical condition which caused lack of capacity (eg diabetes, epilepsy) would be required to plead the new ‘recognized medical condition offence’
- a successful outcome in raising the defence would lead to acquittal
- defence would continue to have the evidential burden, while the legal burden would remain with the prosecution
Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland
Definition
Lord Denning created legal test for automatism
Hill v Baxter
Must be an external factor
The burden of proof for automatism is on the defence
R v Quick
Must be an external factor
(Same ratio as insanity) - external
R v Hennessy
Must be an external factor
(Same ratio as insanity) - internal
R v T
Must be an external factor
External stress can give rise to automatism if severe enough
A-G Reference No2 1992
Must be a total loss of control
As there was some control, the defence of automatism failed
R v Coley, McGhee and Harris
Self-induced automatism
Defence failed as even though D was in an involuntary state, this was because of his voluntary fault
Kay v Butterworth
Self-induced automatism
A D who acts involuntarily after falling asleep may still be liable if the condition was self-induced or foreseeable
R v Hardy
Exception to self-induced automatism
D took a sedative without knowing it could cause him to behave unpredictably/violently
Automatism plan
Defined by Lord Denning in Bratty v A-G of Northern Ireland (created the legal test):
‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking’ -
- It’s where D is unable to control their movements because their muscles reacted without any control of the mind, therefore there’s no MR
The evidential burden of proof is on the defence and the legal burden of proof is on the prosecution - Hill v Baxter
Requirements for automatism:
- An external factor - R v Quick, R v Hennessy, R v T
- E.g. struck on head by object, coughing/hiccups, temporary total loss of control due to a radical event eg attacked by swarm of bees
- A total loss of control - any impaired, reduced or partial control will invalidate the offence - A-G Ref No2 1992
Apply…..
Self-induced automatism:
Defence won’t be successful if the D knows their conduct will bring about an automatic state - R v Coley, McGhee and Harris, Kay v Butterworth
- In such situations, D will have a defence to specific intent crimes, but not basic intent crimes as they voluntarily placed themselves in that position
- The exception to this is where D doesn’t realize their self-induced actions will cause them to be in an automatic state and they were not reckless - R v Hardy
Apply….
Reform for automatism defence:
The Law Commission published a Discussion paper, ‘Criminal Liability: Insanity and Automatism’ in 2013, which proposed:
- replacing the existing common law automatism defence with a new defence of automatism triggered ‘only where there is a total loss of capacity to control one’s actions which is not caused by a recognized medical condition and for which the accused was not culpably responsible’
- D’s who raised the defence due to a recognized medical condition which caused lack of capacity (eg diabetes, epilepsy) would be required to plead the new ‘recognized medical condition offence’
- a successful outcome in raising the defence would lead to acquittal
- defence would continue to have the evidential burden, while the legal burden would remain with the prosecution
Apply…
Conclusion - if defence of automatism is successsful, it results in a complete acquittal of the offence committed.
