Defences - Automatism

Question 1

Automatism

Answer 1

Incapacity Defences

Should not lead to criminal liability

• Insane Automatism (Insanity)
• if successful leads to special verdict (e.g. permanent mental hospital treatment)
• Automatism (non insane)
  if successful, leads to complete acquittal

Question 2

Insanity

Answer 2

M’Naghten rules

(internal causes)

Question 3

Automatism - General Rule

Answer 3

1. must be involuntary (not self-induced)
2. must be a complete loss of control
3. must be external

Leads to complete acquittal.

Question 4

1. An involuntary act

Answer 4

Mind is not controlling limbs in a purposeful manner

Bratty v AG for NI (1963)

D has an epileptic seizure, strangles his girlfriend in the passenger seat and kills her.
D was found guilty.

Lord Denning:

• Act done by the muscles without any control by the mind
  (e. g. spasm)

or

• Act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing (e.g. sleepwalking)

AGs Ref. No. 2 of 1992

Lorry driver claimed that he had some awareness

A total loss of voluntary control

or

A total lack of awareness.

Question 5

“A total lack of awareness” case authority

Answer 5

AG´s ref (no. 2 of 1992)

Question 6

3. The external factor

(insufficient factors)

Answer 6

Must not be self-induced

1. Can not be used for the defence (Bailey 1983)
2. Can be a defence for specific intent crimes (Basic intent, recklessness)
3. No drink or drugs (Majewski 1976)
4. If unknown outcomes lead to the state it can be used (Hardie 1984)

R v Quick (1973)

(for example, failing to take action)

Question 7

3. The external factor

(sufficient factors)

Answer 7

Based on external cause of loss of control and includes:

1. A blow to the head
2. An attack by a swarm of bees (Hill v Baxter 1958)
   More than 2-3 bees.
3. Sneezing, hypnotysm, and single episodes of sleepwalking
   A total loss, for example, more than one sneeze, multiple episodes of sleepwalking would rather be seen as “internal” because of an illness and it would rather be grouped as insanity (insane automatism).
4. The effect of a drug
   (Unknown outcome from a prescribed drug for example)
5. PTSD (R v T 1990) after rape
   (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder leaded D to a robbery)
   Trauma can be an externally factor

Question 8

2. The external factor & Diabetes

Answer 8

Hypo vs Hyper Glycaemia

R v Quick (1973)

Diabetes is an internal factor

Hyper is insanity, Hypo is automatism - Not guilty

D was suffering from automatism, insulin is an external factor.

Broome v Perkins (1987)

He had some control over his vehicle, therefore he was guilty.

From the general rule, some is sufficient.