Non-insane automatism

Question 1

When does NIA apple

Answer 1

when D is not legally insane but for some reason is able to control what he is doing

Question 2

What is the tests for NIA

Answer 2

1) The act must be involuntary
2) It is caused by an external factor
3) There must be a total loss of mental faculty
4) The accused must be blameless

Question 3

What is the involuntary act

Answer 3

any action done must be involuntary when the person is not conscious of what he is doing

Question 4

NIA is caused by an external factor such as

Answer 4

concussion, bees, sneezing fit R V Whoolley

Question 5

What else could the external factor be

Answer 5

A traumatic event inc. severe shock, e.g. PTSD

Question 6

Which case indicated PTSD could be an external factor

Answer 6

R V T

Question 7

Case facts of R V T

Answer 7

D was raped, 3 days later took part in robbery and assault, claimed she was suffering PTSD from the rape and has acted in a dream like state

Question 8

For a total loss of mental faculty which must the actions of D be

Answer 8

not controlled by the mind

Question 9

How much mental faculties must be lost

Answer 9

There must be a total loss

Question 10

Since there must be a total loss what does this imply

Answer 10

If the mind is still functions even if that is in a confused state the defence is not available

Question 11

What did Isitt state in the CA

Answer 11

Even though D’s mind was not functioning perfectly, his driving was purposive and he still had some control of his mind therefore no NIA

Question 12

Case facts of Issitt

Answer 12

D involved in road traffic accident, he drove off erratically, police chased him through fields and charged with dangerous driving, argued accident has caused him psychiatric damage causing a state of automatism and he did not know what he was doing, however he was convicted and his appeal failed as his driving was purposive therefore still had some mental functioning

Question 13

Case facts of Broome V Perkins

Answer 13

D drove erratically and was convicted of driving without due care and attention, automatism rejected because he had been able to steer and brake therefore he had not lost control complete

Question 14

What did AG Reference no 2 state

Answer 14

D drove his lorry for 6 hours and hit and killed 2 people, claimed automastim, argued driving without awareness was due to automatism from driving a long journey.
CC allow defence, CA said automatism should not be allowed because requires a total loss of control, but D’s control was reduced/ impaired and this is insufficient as he had some control and had been partially aware of what was happening
confirmed Broome V Perkins, and Issitt

Question 15

What does lack of blame mean

Answer 15

D is blameless for his actions

Question 16

What is self included automatism

Answer 16

Where D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state but chooses to allow this to happen away

Question 17

An example of self induced automatism

Answer 17

A driver who is tired but continues to drive and then causes an accident would be liable because automatism was self induced as in Kay V Butterworth

Question 18

Case facts of Kay V Butterwoth

Answer 18

K was driving car when was overcome by sleep and rain into soldiers marching, k had been working all night and argue since he was asleep he was not responsible.
Conduct had been self-induced- since he had been reckless this was sufficient for the MR

Question 19

Cases regarding self induced and diabetics

Answer 19

R V C and R V clarke
Both diabetics and had episodes whilst driving were the lost control and killed. Both charged with death by dangerous driving, both been reckless so no defence,
but a diabetic who fails to take insulin and then attacks someone may be allowed a defence if the did not know they may become dangerous

Question 20

What is the rule for self-induced automatism and Specific intent offences

Answer 20

SIC require intention only, so self-induced automatism can be a defence because D lacks MR for SIC as recklessness is insufficient

Question 21

Which case clarifies the law on use of automatism in SIC and BIC

Answer 21

R V Bailey

Question 22

Case facts of R V bailey

Answer 22

Diabteic who failed to eat after taking insulin and became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar, at first instance judge did not allow because said it was self-induced, CA upheld conviction because lack of evidence to suggest he was an automoaton

Question 23

When can self-induced automatism be a defence for a BIC crime

Answer 23

Where D dos not know his actions and likley to lead to an automatic state so there is clearly no recklessness therefore no MR as shown in R V Hardie

Question 24

R V hardie case facts

Answer 24

D was depressed and took valium, the usual effects calm people down, he set fire to the wardrobe, he claimed he did not know what he was doing because of the valium. IN First instance judge directed jury to ignore affected of valium and was convicted
on appeal conviction were quashed as he thought the drug would calm him down, D had not been reckless and he didn’t know it would make him aggressive

Question 25

When is self-iduced automatism not allowed for BIC

Answer 25

When D acted recklessly in getting into an automatic state as in Kay V Butterwork so cunningham recklessness is sufficient
Or when self-induced automatism results form intoxication the jury would have to consider the defence of intoxication instead as decided in Majewski, voluntary intoxication = recklessness