MC Defence Automatism

Question 1

What distinguishes non insane automatism from insane automatism

Answer 1

NIA caused by external factors IA caused by disease of the mind

Question 2

What did R v Quick demonstrate

Answer 2

1NIA Caused by external factor 2Insulin was an external factor

Question 3

Definition of NIA and case

Answer 3

Bratty v AG of NI ‘act done by the muscles w no control of the mind such as a spasm reflex action or convulsion or an act done while unconscious for example sleepwalking’

Question 4

Explain the concept of no fault

Answer 4

Actus reus not committed voluntarily therefore there’s no men’s rea so defendant is not at fault for their action. Concept was approved in Hill v Baxter

Question 5

Ag ref no2 of 1992 1993

Answer 5

Reduced or partial control not sufficient for automatism

Question 6

R v T

Answer 6

PTSD can be automatism

Question 7

Self induced automatism

Answer 7

The way defence works based on whether intent is specific or basic. If state of automatism came from Ds voluntary actions intoxication rules apply. R v Coley demonstrates this, upheld in R v Mcghee.
If automatism comes from appropriate action but with an unexpected consequence then defence is available for both specific and basic intent.

Question 8

What happens when automatism results from an improper action

Answer 8

Defence available for specific intent demonstrated by R V Hardie
Not available for basic intent if defendant knew the risk that if they became an automaton they would engage in dangerous conduct demonstrated by R V Bailey