Automatism

Question 1

Automatism Overview

Answer 1

External Factors

Arises where D acts while unconscious or with impaired consciousness. Essentially that your actions were not voluntary.

1) Insane automatism (internal so treated doctrinally the same as insanity)
2) non-insane automatism (external and has own set of rules)

Can negate MR and AR

Question 2

Automatism: Elements of the defence

Answer 2

1) A COMPLETE loss of voluntary control;
2) Caused by an external factor; and
3) D was not at fault in losing capacity (excludes substance abuse)

Does not reverse the burden of proof. D only has an evidential burden.
R v Stripp: The prosecution have the legal burden, but D must also discharge the evidential burden.

Question 3

Automatism: Meaning of ‘involuntary’

Answer 3

Spasm, convulsion, reflex

Question 4

Automatism: ‘Complete loss of control’

Answer 4

R v Perkins: hypoglycaemic episode. Could still react, but only imperfectly. Not enough. Mid was still engaged and so automatism cannot stand.

Question 5

Automatism: External factors

Answer 5

Dissociative states: only when not part of ordinary stresses and disappointments (R v Rabey)
R v T: had been raped three days prior. Held: was in a dissociative state and rape was not an ordinary stress of life.

R v Hennessy: Hyper is still internal cause so not for automatism.

Question 6

Automatism: Sleepwalking

Answer 6

Originally accepted as automatism.

R v Burgess: non-automatism plea rejected, and D found insane.

Note: seems to be permitted for cases of ‘sex-somnia’

Question 7

Automatism: Diabetics

Answer 7

Hypo is due to an external cause, whereas Hyper is due to the disease its self and so results from an internal cause.

Question 8

Automatism: Blamelessness and prior fault

Answer 8

Does a diabetic know the risks? Does this matter?

R v Quick: A self-induced incapacity will not excuse, nor will one that has been reasonably foreseen.

R v Bailey: D has hypoglycaemia (fails to eat food)
- the comments from Quick were obiter. Held that not all diabetics will know the risks of hypo and so the rule in Quick will only apply to diabetics who know the risk.

Question 9

Automatism: Reform

Answer 9

Draft Criminal Code Bill:

Changes ‘complete’ to ‘effective’ which will make it much broader.

HOWEVER:
Law Commission 2012:
redefine automatism to say ‘wholly lacked capacity