automatism Flashcards
mental capacity defence
automatism
a defence to a criminal offence:
Bratty v AG for NI
an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind or by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing
recquires D to show his act was :
> involuntary
due to an external factor
External cause
> a blow to the head
sneezing
hypnotism
PTSD
effect of a drug
Hill v Baxter
sneezing
Drove through a halt sign and collided with another car.
a person should not be made liable where, through no fault of his own, he becomes unconscious when driving
stress in exceptional circumstances can be basis of automatism
R v T - D was raped and suffered PTSD
R v Quick
had taken insulin but not eaten and drunk alcohol, these were all external factors so he could successfully raise the defence of automatism
there has to be total loss of voluntary control
AGs reference- he continued to drive for 100 metres before crashing showing he still had some kind of control
self induced automatism
defence may not be available if the automatism was by their own fault.(Quick)
if the automatism comes from the Ds own voluntary conduct the defence is likely to fail
R v Coley
D had taken cannabis which led him to attack his neighbours.
He was not acting completely involuntarily (able to dress in certain clothes and use house keys) and he had induced his condition by voluntary intoxication
R v McGhee
D took temazepam and drank alcohol
Court ruled even if he was in a state of automatism the defence would’ve failed on the grounds he induced it through his voluntary fault + was aware of the dangers of taking them together
if automatism results from appropriate action but has an unexpected outcome then:
> it will be a defence for specific intent crime (R v Hardie)
but will NOT be a defence for basic intent crimes - be reckless if they knew the risk if they did become an automaton (R v Bailey)
R v Hardie
D took tablets not prescribed to him but they had an unexpected effect and he set fire to a wardrobe.
D hadn’t not been reckless so should be left to the jury to decide
R v Bailey
D hit ex partners new bf over head with an iron bar but D was diabetic who had taken his insulin but forgot to eaten.
Self-induced automatism may be a defence to basic intent crimes if not due to intoxication or drugs; where D doesn’t realise the risk associated with his conduct he can use the defence.
