Defence - Automatism Flashcards
What are the two types of automatism
- Insane Automatism, where the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind, an internal one within the M’Naughten Rules. In such a case the defence is insanity and the verdict not guilty by reason of insanity.
- Non-Insane Automatism, where the cause is an external one. Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.
What must Non-Insane Automatism be caused by?
Non-insane automatism: has to be caused by an EXTERNAL factor over which the defendant has no control.
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland
“an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or 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 sleep-walking”
What are some examples of external factors that could cause a non-insane automatism
Some external factors that could be covered by this definition include sneezing, hypnotism, and the unknown effects of a drug or a blow to the head.
In the case of Hill v Baxter (1958), a plea of automatism was successful where the defendant had been attacked by a swarm of bees whilst driving.
It has also been the case that exceptional stress can amount to automatism. This was illustrated in the case of R v T. where the defendant stabbed the victim whilst suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the judge allowed the defence, the jury were not convinced and convicted the defendant.
What is the first element of automatism
Is the crime committed a specific intent crime or basic intent crime?
Specific Intent crime will be a complete defence always.
If Basic Intent then the question is whether or not it was self induced or non-self-induced.
What are specific and basic intent crimes?
Specific Intent – where the mens rea for a crime is one of just intention. Examples include murder and s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which is grievous bodily harm with intent, and for which automatism will be a complete defence.
Basic Intent – where the mens rea for a crime is recklessness or negligence,
or a crime of strict liability. Examples include all offences under the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861, with the exception of s18, and for which
automatism will be a complete defence provided it was not self-induced.
What happens if the automatism is / isnt self induced for a basic intent offence?
If it is non-self induced then the D will be given a complete defence
If it is self induced it is subject to the exceptions laid out in Bailey
What were the rules for self-induced automatism for basic intent crimes laid out in Bailey
R v Bailey (1983) outlined that automatism CANNOT be a defence, where:
a) The defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton; or
b) Where the automatism has been caused by illegal drink or drugs.
However, the judge in the case did stipulate that the defence of automatism CAN BE USED where:
c) The defendant does not know that his actions are likely to result in an automatic state. This is because it cannot be said that the defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton.- R v Hardie
