Paper 1.13b - Automatism Flashcards
What are the two types of automatism?
Insane and non-insane.
Who is the defence of automatism intended for?
People who don’t have the required MR but committed the crime due to an external factor eg swarm of bees, sneezing, hypnotism.
Who is the burden of proof on in the defence of automatism?
The prosecution, beyond all reasonable doubt.
Is automatism a full or partial defence?
Full, leads to acquittal.
Bratty defines automatism as what?
“Act done by muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm, reflex action or convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing eg concussed or sleep-walking.”
What case confirmed that there must be an external factor in an automatism?
Hill v Baxter.
What did the case of Woolley decide in terms of automatism?
A sneezing fit amounts to an involuntary action and therefore can be the basis for an automatism.
What is the significance of the case of Quick, in terms of automatisms?
Taking too much medicine/insulin could amount to an automatism.
In the case of T, D was raped. Three days later she was caught as part of a robbery. She claimed to have suffered PTSD from the rape and that she wasn’t in sound mind. What was the outcome of this case?
Trial judge let the defence of automatism go to the jury, they convicted her.
In automatism, there must be a complete destruction of voluntary. In AG Ref, a long haul driver killed two people due to his reckless driving. D was suffering from the condition ‘driving without awareness’. What was the outcome of this case?
Jury acquitted D. AG referred the case to CA who ruled that there was only a partial loss, therefore D should have been convicted.
Self induced automatism is where d knows his conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state. It is more limited than regular automatism. What is the case example of this?
Bailey
D, diabetic, failed to eat after taking insulin, causing him to become aggressive. He hit someone over the head with an iron bar; CA ruled insufficient evidence of an automatism.
What is a specific intent crime and can self-induced automatism be a defence to one?
Only mens rea is intention eg theft, murder.
Yes, D lacks the MR for the crime.
What is a basic intent crime and can self-induced automatism be a defence to one?
Mens rea is intention or recklessness eg ABH, assault.
No, D is reckless by getting into a situation where they may become automatic.
What happened in the case of Hardie (self induced automatism)?
D took some of his ex-girlfriend’s Valium to calm down. It had the opposite effect and caused D to set V’s wardrobe on fire. CA quashed conviction as he had not been reckless.
