Automatism Flashcards
(9 cards)
automatism
In Bratty v attorney general for the northern Ireland(1963), automatism was defined by lord denning as An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as spasm , a reflex action or a convulsion ;or an act done a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done while suffering from concussion or whilist sleep walking
two types of automatism
- Insane automatism -this is where the cause of the automatism is a diease of the mind within M’Naghten Rule . In such case the defence is insanity and the verdict by reason of insanity
- Non- insane automatism- this is where the cause is an external one. Where such a defence succeeds , it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guility . the actus reus of a crime committed by the defendant is not vuluntary . in addition the defendant does not have the mens rea for the offence
r v quick
the defendant was a diabetic who had taken his insulin but had not eaten enough food this caused him to have low blood sugar levels which affected his brain. He was a nurse at a mental hostipal and assaulted a patient . The court ruled his condition did not come with the definition of insanity. It was caused by an external factors the insulin which meant taht the correct defence was automatism
hill v baxter
the defendant drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car . he was charged with dangerous driving but there was little evidence to support a defence of automatism . however it was stated a person sdhould be made liable where though no fault of his own he became unconscious when driving
There has to be a total loss of voluntary control,
There has to be a total loss of voluntary control, as set out in Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992).where The defendant was a lorry driver, who after driving for several hours, drove along the hard shoulder of a motorway for about half a mile. He hit a stationary broken-down car, killing two people. He said that he was suffering from a condition of ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver into a trance-like state. This could be brought on by driving for long distances on featureless motorways. However, because this condition only causes partial loss of control, it does not amount to automatism. Even in this state, a driver has still enough awareness to drive a vehicle.
self -induced automatism
This is where the defendant knows that their conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state. How the defence (and the defence of intoxication) works depends on whether the offence committed is one of specific intent or basic intent.
Self-induced automatism - Intoxication
When the state of automatism comes about from the defendant’s own voluntary conduct, the intoxication rules apply. This is illustrated by R v Coley where The defendant had been taking cannabis which led him to attack his neighbours. As well as arguing the defence of insanity, the defendant argued automatism. The Court dismissed this argument as (a) he was not acting wholly involuntarily (he was able to dress himself in certain clothes and use keys to enter the neighbour’s house) and (b) he had induced his condition by voluntary intoxication.
R v McGhee (2013)
The defendant, suffering from tinnitus, took temazepam (a sedative and muscle relaxant) and drank alcohol. He was charged with s 47 and s 18 offences but claimed he had no recollection of the assaults. The court ruled that even if he had been in a state of automatism, the defence would have failed on the grounds that he induced it through his voluntary fault. He had voluntarily drunk himself into a state of intoxication which was worsened by the combination of temazepam with alcohol, and he was well aware of the dangers of taking them together.
If automatism results from some perfectly appropriate action but with unanticipated consequences, it will be a defence to offences of both specific and basic intent.
If automatism results from some perfectly appropriate action but with unanticipated consequences, it will be a defence to offences of both specific and basic intent. This could occur, for example, from a wholly unexpected adverse reaction to taking a legitimate prescription drug. * If the automotive state results from some kind of improper action or failure by the defendant – for example, if a diabetic took an excessive dose of insulin or failed to eat sufficient food having taken insulin – automatism: * will be a defence to specific intent offences, because they cannot be in a worse position than they would be in if their state resulted from intoxication (R v Hardie (1984)) * will not be a defence to a basic intent offence if they knew the risk that if they did become an automaton, they might engage in dangerous or aggressive conduct (R v Bailey (1983)). This is similar to the position with the defence of voluntary intoxication
