Class 5: Automatism 100%

Question 1

Insane automatism comes from internal or external?

Non-insane automatism comes from internal or external?

Answer 1

Internal

External

Question 2

Automatism textbook defintion

Answer 2

“Automatism” refers to an abnormal mental state in which the person’s conscious mind is not directing that person’s actions. Such a person’s behaviour is “automatic”, the person can be described as an “automaton”, and so the condition is “automatism”.

Question 3

True or False:

It is important to recognize that once the factual claim that an accused was in an automatism state is settled, conviction has disappeared as one of the alternatives: the remaining possibilities are only acquittal or NCRMD.

Answer 3

True.

Question 4

True or false:

A person who is in an automatic state will always, by virtue of being in that state, be incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his or her act or omission or of knowing it was wrong.

Answer 4

True. Copied word-for-word from the textbook.

Question 5

What is automatism?

Give me an example

Answer 5

Refers to involuntary conduct that is the product of a mental state where the conscious mind is disassociated from the part of the mind that controls action.

Sleep walking

Question 6

If the accused automatism is rooted in a mental disorder, then what?

Will he be acquitted?

Answer 6

This is an internal factor.

Thus he is insane-automatism.

The accused will not be acquitted but will be found NCR-MD.

Question 7

What is the distinction between non-mental disorder automatism and mental disorder automatism?

Answer 7

The distinction between non-mental disorder automatism and mental disorder automatism depends on whether the automatistic state is the product of a mental disorder.

Basically one is internal, the other is external.

Question 8

On a practical level, when does an automatism defence come up?

Note: This isn’t super relevant to know

Answer 8

When it is a very very extreme case, and they are basically throwing the kitchen sink at the case they may argue automatism.

Question 9

Throw back: What are the four pillars of fundamental justice?

Answer 9

POI
BRD
Actus Reus
Mens Reus

Question 10

Throw back: What is a fundamental principle of criminal law?

Answer 10

Person is only responsible for their conscious intentional acts. must be proven BRD.

Question 11

Generally, can a court infer the actions someone took were voluntary?

Answer 11

Yes a court can infer they are from a voluntary mind.

Question 12

What fault standard is used to prove automatism?

Answer 12

Balance of probabilities

Question 13

If someone is not in control of their actions, this is?

Answer 13

An involuntary action

Question 14

True or false: We start with a presumption of voluntariness.

Answer 14

True

Question 15

Two types of automatism.

What are they?

What is there first way of saying it versus the modern way of saying it?

What type of factor is needed for each?

Answer 15

1) Insane automatism same as (mental disorder automatism) Internal factors

2) Non insane automatism. External factors.

Question 16

What is insane automatism (mental disorder automatism)?

What happens if they find him insane?

Answer 16

Where a court finds that the involuntary disorder is due to a mental disorder/disease of the mind, the person is not fully acquitted, but subject to NCR-MD

Question 17

If I had a concussion, is this a internal factor or external factor?

Thus, is this insane automatism or non-insane automatism?

Answer 17

This is external.

Non-insane automatism.

Question 18

What is non insane automatism?

What happens if they find him non-insane automatism?

Answer 18

Due to an external factor, he committed an involuntary act.

Where a court finds there is a non-insane automatism, they are getting a full acquittal.

Question 19

Is automatism in common law or in legislation?

Is it a defence or attack?

Answer 19

Common law.

It is a defence

Question 20

R v Rabey 1980

Facts: UFT student stabbed a girl he liked. Witnesses testified that he looked crazy, and he said he didn’t remember anything.

Issue:

1) What does automatism mean?

Answer 20

Holding:

Court held it was a non-insane automatism and he got a complete acquittal.

Automatism is a term used to describe unconscious involuntary behaviour, the state of a person who thought capable of action is not conscious of what he is doing. it means an unconscious, involuntary act where the mind does not go with what is being done.

Question 21

What is the central question when considering automatism a court will ask (from rabey)

Answer 21

A central question in deciding a case of automatism is whether the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind.

Question 22

What does it mean by a “internal factor” for a insane automatism?

If it is an internal factor then?

Answer 22

Internal factor is something that has its source in the accusers physiological/emotional makeup. Can be disease of the mind if it makes it so the accused does not know what they are doing.

Having its source in the accused psychological or emotional makeup, or in some organic pathology; having its source in some subjective condition or weakness internal to the accused (whether fully understood or not); may be a “disease of the mind” if it prevents accused from knowing what he is doing.

Then it is a disease of the mind and thus insane automatism.

Question 23

Non-insane automatism can be caused by external factors.

What are some potential external factors?

If I get really mad and kill, can this be considered an external factor that would support my defence?

Answer 23

Can be from intoxication, a concussion.

Non-insane Automatism if caused by external factors (such as concussion). Transient disturbances of consciousness due to certain specific external factors do not fall within concept of disease of the mind.

Question 24

Will ordinary stresses of life constitute external factors for an automatism claim?

Answer 24

Transient disturbances of consciousness due to certain specific external factors do not fall within concept of disease of the mind .

Ordinary stresses of life/emotional stresses are not external factors.

Question 25

If non-insane automatism is available, what do you get?

What if insane automatism is left with the jury?

Answer 25

Is non-insane automatism available? if so, entitled to complete acquittal if Crown can’t prove state of mind of the accused BRD (in the sense that the act was voluntary).

Insane automatism be left with jury? If so, accused has to show on balance of probabilities- entitled to qualified acquittal (Not guilty by reason of insanity).

Question 26

Hypo:

I broke up with my girlfriend and I am mad so I kill my girl.

Can I claim non-insane automatism?

Answer 26

No according to R v Rabey, ordinary stresses of life/emotional stresses are not external factors.

Question 27

R v Parks

Facts: Sleepwalking guy killed 5 of his family. Provided evidence of sleepwalking for years and he went stabby stabby stab.

Issue: Should sleepwalking be classified as non-insane automatism? OR should it be classified as insane automatism?

Answer 27

Holding:

No they found that this was non-insane automatism and thus he is liable for a full acquittal. It is not a disease of the mind

In distinguishing between automatism and insanity a trial judge must consider more than the evidence.

There are overarching policy considerations as well. Of course, the evidence in each case will be highly relevant to this policy inquiry.

Automatism occupies a unique place in the criminal law system although spoken of as a “defence”, it is conceptually a subset of the voluntariness requirement, which in turn is part of the actus reus component of criminal liability.

Question 28

Is disease of the mind a legal or medical term?

Answer 28

It’s a legal term, not a medical term.

Question for the judge.

Question 29

What is the continuing danger factor?

Answer 29

The court went on to state in part because of the imprecision of medical science in this area, the legal community reserves for itself the final determination of what constitutes a “disease of the mind”. This is accomplished by adding the policy component to the inquiry (i.e., Continuing danger factor)

Continuing danger factor: whether society requires protection from the accused and, consequently, whether the accused should be subject to evaluation under the regime contained in partXX.1 of the CC.)

Question 30

What are the two approaches/ theories that a court can use to assist if the accused is facing insane or non-insane automatism?

What do they mean?

Answer 30

1) Internal cause theory.

Look at the external and internal factors.

Look at the cause of the condition, and try and determine if the causes are external to the accused’s physical makeup or whether they were external

2) Continuing danger theory

Looks at the extent to which the accused, because of the nature of the condition they are claiming, possess a continuous danger to the community.

Basically holds that any conditions that presents a recurring danger to the community should be insane automatism.

Question 31

What is the internal cause theory?

What is the continuing danger theory?

What do the internal cause theory and continuing danger theory have in common?

Answer 31

Internal Cause Theory: This involves comparing the accused with a normal person. This is to consider whether a normal person in the same circumstances might have reacted to it by entering into an automatistic state as the accused claims. If it an internal cause, it is insanity. If external, then it is non-insane automatism.

Continuing Danger Theory: Is the condition likely to present a recurring danger to the public. If so, should lead to insanity. If not, then non-insane automatism.

The notion of recurrence: Generally speaking, the absence of recurrence will not exclude the possibility of insanity, recurrence is another factor a court will determine to see if the condition is a disease of the mind.

Question 32

Internal cause theory and continuing danger theory for automatism.

Which approach is determinative?

Answer 32

Neither. they are just tools for a court to use to see if the person is insane or not insane

(if the person has a disease of the mind or not)

Question 33

R v Stone 1999

Facts: Stone killed his wife. They had an argument and he stabbed her 47 times and then he went to Mexico. Evidence at trial said he felt that he went crazy.

Issue: Was this insane or non-insane automatism?

1) How do you prove involuntariness? 2 factors that the accused must prove.

2) What is the holistic approach they used?

Answer 33

Holding:

In order to satisfy evidentiary burden placed on the accused to demonstrate involuntariness, the defence must:

1) Assert involuntariness
2) Call expert evidence

Satisfying the above is not all that is needed, the court will assess the evidence. If balance of probabilities is met, then you prove involuntariness to a balance of probiatilites

Court took a holistic approach includes looking at the cause of the condition (internal v external), the continuing danger (including likelihood of recurring violence).

Ratio: Judges should assume it is insane automatism and then from there they can consider if the evidence takes it to non-insane automatism.

Question 34

True or false: Trial judges must assume the accused is disease of mind instead of non-insane automatism?

Answer 34

True. Non-insane is very rare. REMEMBER this is not step one. Step 1 is proving it was an involuntary act based on some mental disorder.

Question 35

Assume the court has already proven the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Before a court discusses any type of automatism, what first must be proved, by whom, and on what scale?

Answer 35

The accused must proof on balance of probabilities there was involuntary conduct FIRST.

Question 36

Does automatism refer to voluntary acts?

Answer 36

No. Automatism refers to involuntary conduct that is the product of a mental state in which the conscious mind is disassociated from the part of the mind that controls action. A person in the state of automatism may perform acts, sometimes complicated and apparently purposeful acts, but have no control over those actions.

Question 37

Can conduct that is not voluntary be criminal?

Answer 37

Conduct that is not voluntary cannot be criminal. Voluntariness requirement is a principle of fundamental justice protected by s. 7 and 11 (d) of the Charter.

Question 38

For automatism, do you have a assumption it is insane automatism or not insane automatism

Answer 38

Generally if you have a proven involuntary act, then you assume it is insane as it is very rare for non-insane automatism .

Question 39

R v Ludecke (this is a good case for a summary)

Facts: They went to a house party, and the victim LO was at the party and defendant raped her while he was sleeping (sexomnia) Evidence presented from expert he committed sexomnia.

Issue:

1) Conduct that is not voluntary. Can it be criminal?

2) What can be some things that can produce a condition where the accused is automatism?

3) What is automatism denying essentially (mens rea or actus reus)

4) If something is found to be an involuntary act and the person is suffering from a disease of the mind, then?

Answer 39

Holding:

Conduct that is not voluntary cannot be criminal.

Court claims automatism can be caused by many things (disease, mental illness, drugs, concussion) can produce a condition where the accused is incapable of controlling their actions.

The automatism defence is not a defence but a denial of the commission of the actus reus of the crime.

found it to be a involuntary act, and it was a disease of the mind automatism (inane automatism)

Question 40

R v Bouchard-Lebrun

Facts: Took drugs, in was crazy, he killed people.

Issue:

Can he argue the drugs made him involuntary and thus crazy?

Can toxic psychosis of self induced pill be a mental disorder?

Answer 40

Holding:

Court held the accused was heavily intoxicated. he argues the pill made him crazy. Court agrees he was crazy and involuntary.

However, he cannot claim voluntary drug use as an involuntary act/automatism.

No. Section 33(1) does not allow involuntary intoxication as a defense for automatism.

Question 41

Is self induced states a mental disorder?

Is it absolute? (aka can you claim disease of the mind even from something else even if you first claimed self-induced mental disorder)

Answer 41

No it is not allowed.

It is not absolute. Accused can still show suffering from disease of the mind aside from their intoxicated related mind.

Question 42

What is the purpose of the mental disorder defence for automatism

Answer 42

the purpose is to ascertain whether the mental condition poses an inherent risk.

A danger to public safety that might be caused voluntarily created by the accused would not be the result of a mental disorder

Question 43

True or False

An accused whose mental condition at the material time can be attributed exclusively to a state of temporary self induced intoxication and who poses no threat to other is not suffering from a mental disorder

Answer 43

True.

Question 44

Does automatism defend both your mens rea and actus reus?

If not, what does it defend?

Answer 44

The automatism defense is not a defense in the true sense. It is a denial of the commission of the actus reus of the crime not the mens rea.

A person who is unable to decide whether to perform an act and unable to commit the performance of the act cannot be said, in any meaningful sense, to have committed the act. Nor can it be appropriate in a criminal justice system in which liability is predicated on personal responsibility to convict persons based on conduct which those persons have no ability to control