Automatism

Question 1

automatism definition

Answer 1

an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind or by the person who is not conscious of what they are doing
- defined in R V bratty

If successful = full defence

insane automatism (old law) is now insanity

Question 2

Elements of automatism

Answer 2

1. Involuntary
2. due to an external factor

• self induced automatism

Question 3

1. Involuntary

Answer 3

AR done by D is involuntary = no mens rea

there must be a total loss of control involutarily, partial or reduced loss of control is not sufficient - AG’s ref no.2 1992

Question 4

AG’s ref no.2 1992

Answer 4

Lorry driver drove 0.5 miles down hard shoulder, was tired had been driving for several hrs (hit a stationary broken down vehicle, killing 2 people)
D said he was suffering condition of “driving without awareness” - only caused a partial loss of control = doesn’t amount to automatism, fact that he still drove for 05 mile means he still had some awareness to drive a vehicle

Question 5

2.External cause

Answer 5

Examples of external cause;

• swarm of bees (Hill V Baxter)
• sneezing attack
• hypnotism
• PTSD/stress in extreme circumstances (R V tay)
• a blow to the head
• forgetting to eat after taking insulin (Quick)

Question 6

Hill v baxter

Answer 6

D drove through stop sign and crashed into another car caused by swarm of bees
Courts decided a person shouldnt be liable where through no fault of there own he becomes unconcious while driving e.g. struck by a stone/ overcome by sudden illness

Question 7

R V quick

Answer 7

D had forgotten to eat after he had taken insulin (and had drank alcohol) caused hypoglycemia
- caused by the insulin = an external factor

Question 8

R V Tay

Answer 8

D suffered PTSD after being raped, able to claim for automatism

Question 9

SELF INDUCED AUTOMATISM

Answer 9

d will not be able to rely on the defence if the loss of control was self induced

will depend on if D knew the risk - if the automatism comes from the D’d own voluntary act, defence is likely to fail

R V coley
R V McGee

Question 10

R V coley

Answer 10

D used canabis which led him to attck his neighbours in their home
courts dissmissed defence as;

1) he wasnt acting wholly involuntay = able to use keys to entre the house
2) he had induced the automatism by taking subtances

Question 11

R V McGee

Answer 11

D suffered from tinnitis (constant ringing of the ears), took temazipan (a sedative) and drank
claimed he had no recollection of the assaults he committed

No defence as he was aware of the dangers of staking both substances

Question 12

If automatism results from an appropriate action but with an unanticipated concequence (eg. taking prescription drug)

Answer 12

defence to both Specific and basic intent

• beacuse they cannot be in a worse position than they would be in if their state resulted from intoxication (Hardie)

Question 13

If automatism results from a D’s failure/improper action

Answer 13

Only defence to a specific intent crime, not basic intent

• If they knew the risk that if they did become an automaton, they might engage in dangerous aggressive conduct (R V bailey)