Chapter 2: Automatism Flashcards
What is automatism
When one brings up this defence, it is a denial (involuntary) of both the actus reus and the mens reaand therefore,not guilty
What are the 3 elements of an act (posititve act)
- concious
- voluntary
- movement of muscles
What are the 2 types of automatism
Insane automatism (insanity)
Non-insane automatism (automatism)
Don’t get mixed up. Grey area in the law
What are positive acts
- Concious
- Voluntary
- Movement of muscles
What are negative acts (omission)
- Concious
- Voluntary
- No movement of muscles
What is the general rule of principle and policy in criminal law
Kay V Butterworth - one must understand the study of criminal law can be due do principles of the case, and sometimes, due to policy of consideration, it is only just and fair, that at all times, the court must adhere to principles of the law. In this case however, principle led to absurdity making a driver who slept off, not guilty. This is not justice, hence court invoked policy, making the defendant liable for the crime
Principle first used, if not proper decision (moral) then use policy
What are the 2 types of non-insane automatism
Physical involuntariness
Mental involuntariness
What is physical involuntariness
When one has complete destruction of voluntary control over their limbs/conduct
Note: Not sufficient enough if defendant’s mind was acting imperfectly if he or she is still reacting to stimuli and controlling his limbs in a purposive way
(Not even trance like state)
Ryan v The Queen [1967]
Held: High court judge, agreed to the argument of reflex, however, the defendant came to the petrol station with a loaded gun and the safety latch removed. These 2 evidences of facts showed that the defendant indented to use the gun should the need arise
Broome v Perkins
Facts: D was charged with driving without due care and attention. He had been driving erratically for about six miles. He claimed he was suffering from hypoglycaemia
Held: Court held that the D should be convicted as his erratic driving showed his act was voluntary at times (not complete destruction)
AG’s Reference No.2 of 1992 [1993]
Held: Here courts again emphasised that there must be total failure of control. D crashed into a broken down vehicle; because he was acquitted the issue of whether his condition amounted to automatism came before the Court of Appeal in the form of reference
Experts say he was driving without awareness “…the driver’s capacity to avoid a collision ceased to exist because repetitive stimuli experienced on a straight flat featureless motorways could induce a trance like state.
Didn’t amount to automatism
What is mental involuntariness
Watmore v Jenkins (1962) 2 QB 572 - automatism is defined as a condition whereby the movements of a person’s body or limbs are involuntary
How does Lord Denning define mental involuntariness
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)
an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing (mental involuntariness)
What is recklessness
Doing or omitting to do something which could reasonably be foreseen to be likely to bring about such result
What must a defendant do to prove automatism
- Act committed had no intention or was not reckless
The additional condition that must be met in the defence of non-insane automatism is that the accused was not reckless into this state (like self-intoxication)
R v Bailey (1983) 2 All ER 503
Important case
Facts: D us a diabetic and required to take insulin to control his condition. Defence during trial was that he had no intention of harming the victim and he was purely acting in a state of automatism cause by hypoglycemia (when blood sugar is very low)
Held: Judge felt the automatism resulting from intoxication as a result of involuntary ingestion of alcohol or dangerous drugs, in this case it was someone who failed to take sufficient food after insulin to advert hypoclycaemia. It was no defence to crimes of basic intent as such person should reaslise the foreseeable risk (but good defence for specific intent)
Judge stated that if the D ran the risk of such a failure which could lead to aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrollable conduct and he nevertheless deliberately runs the risk or otherwise disregards it, amounts to recklessness
- But if D did not know the risk then it would be a good defence
What are the 5 exceptions to automatism
- Ordinary stress and depression - Rabey v The Queen
- Falling asleep at the wheel - Kay v Butterworth
- Pre-menstrual tension
- Reflex - Ryan v The Queen
- If physical movement is voluntary (even though it is unintentionally misdirected, concious)
What are the differences between insanity and automatism
Isane automatism
- Internal cause of factors - one of the elements in establishing insanity is “disease of the mind”
- Defence for all crimes (negates mens rea)
- Different elements
- BOP is on defendant
- Verdict - Not guilty by reason of insanity
- Outcome - admitted to mental assylum
- Must have 2 or more evidence from medical practitioners
Non-insane automatism
- External cause of factor
- Defence to all crimes - negates mens rea (but for policy reasons only)
- Different elements
- Legal burden on prosection
- Outcome - fully aquitted
Which defence is hyperglycaemia
- High blood sugar
- Insanity - internal factor (incontrollable)
Which defence is hypoglycaemia
- Low blood sugar
- Automatism - External factor (controllable- caused due to not talking insulin/falining to take suffiecient food)
