Automatism Flashcards
Definition
Automatism can best be described as a state of total blackout, during which a
person is not conscious of their actions and not in control of them.
An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind
In Bratty28 the Court found this to be such as a spasm, a reflex action or a
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
sleepwalking.
R v Cottle [1958] NZLR 989
Doing something without knowledge of it and without memory afterwards of
having done it - a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves
the person so affected able to exercise bodily movements.
Culpability
Actions performed in a state of automatism are involuntary and the common
law rule is that there is no criminal liability for such conduct.
Caused by a medical condition
Apart from the concussion and sleepwalking referred to in Bratty,
automatism may be caused by a brain tumour, epilepsy, arteriosclerosis
(which can cause temporary unconsciousness by interfering with the supply
of blood to the brain) or by consumption of alcohol or drugs.
Caused by consumption of alcohol or drugs
Where automatism is brought about by a voluntary intake of alcohol or drugs
the Court may be reluctant to accept that the actions were involuntary or that
the offender lacked intention.
Decisions of the courts indicate that cogent (convincing) evidence is
necessary to support it, and only in very rare cases will it be enough for a
person to say that they did not know or cannot remember what happened, or
that they had a blackout. Such statements have been called “one of the first
refuges of a guilty conscience and a popular excuse”.
Two types of automatism
Automatism may be quite different and distinct from insanity, although it may
be due to a disease of the mind. Hence it is necessary to distinguish between:
Sane automatism - the result of somnambulism (sleepwalking), a blow to the
head or the effects of drugs
OR Insane automatism - the result of a mental disease.
Both forms of automatism involve action without conscious volition.
Whether automatism to be treated as insanity
Certain types of automatism are treated by the law as cases of insanity, and
the legal test of insanity, as formulated in s23 of the Crimes Act 1961,
applies. Whether or not a case of automatism is to be treated as such depends
on the presence or absence of a disease of the mind.
The significant point to note about this type of automatism is that it may lead
to a finding of insanity, even if the defendant has not raised this defence and
has pleaded automatism alone.
It is important that it should be determined whether the case is one in which
a finding of insanity would be permissible; this can be only if mental disease
in some form or other is present. If the condition of the defendant is of such
a nature as to warrant a finding of insanity, that issue may have to be put to
the jury whether or not such a defence has been raised by the defendant.
Statutory provisions compel that course.
A judge may act in accordance with s20 CP(MIP) Act, when “it appears in
evidence” that the defendant was insane (see page 72).
Successful plea of automatism negates intent and responsibility
The position with sane automatism is clearer. If there is no question of
disease of the mind, a successful plea of automatism negates intent as well as
responsibility for the actus reus, and the result is an unqualified acquittal. If
the defendant produces sufficient evidence that intent was lacking because
they were acting in an autonomous state, then they must be acquitted as the
Crown will have failed to prove the existence of the mental element in the
offence.
Automatism induced by drink or drugs
This issue is complex and should not be confused with the general defence
of intoxication.
The position in New Zealand as to whether someone has become an
automaton by ingesting so many drugs or so much alcohol that they are not
responsible for their actions, is a defence that is available if the evidence of
the defence can clearly raise the issue.
Defence on the balance of probabilities
The High Court has said that even with a charge of “strict liability” like
driving with excess breath alcohol, it is possible to raise this defence.
However, because it is a strict liability offence (which means that no mens
rea need be proved by the prosecution) the defence must establish a defence
to the balance of probabilities.
The Court in Keech v Pratt29 found that a defendant could avoid liability for
the offence if he could prove on the balance of probabilities that his state of
excess alcohol was without fault by automatism or otherwise.
This view was upheld in Joe v Police30 where evidence given by a police
officer as to an appellant’s lucidity and rationality at the time he was stopped
in his motor vehicle reinforced the judge in his view that there was no
foundation for a defence of automatism.
Criminal intent
Certain offences require intent and others require little or no intent. An
example of each follows:
No intent required - Driving with an excess breath alcohol content.
Therefore for a defence to succeed on this charge a
person must prove a total absence of fault. In other
words, the person drove without conscious appreciation
of the fact of driving, or of the fact of intoxication.
Intent required - Any offence that has intent as an element of the
offence. An example is assault which requires intent (to
apply force to another person).
Application in New Zealand Courts
There is no need to work out which offence has a specific, as against a basic,
intent as the English cases require. New Zealand has adopted the principle
that self-induced intoxication can lead to a defence of automatism, if the
evidence is sufficiently strong to support the defence.
In New Zealand, the courts are likely to steer a middle course, allowing a
defence of automatism arising out of taking alcohol and drugs, to offences of
basic intent only. They are likely to disallow the defence where the state of
mind is obviously self-induced, the person is blameworthy, and the
consequences could have been expected.
