SB: MCD: Automatism

Question 1

Define Automatism

Answer 1

Automatism is an action done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm reflex or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who isn’t conscious of what he is doing.
R v Bratty -This is a full defence which will lead to a complete acquittal

Question 2

Explain Destruction of Voluntary control

Answer 2

There must be a complete destruction of voluntary control. This must be an automatic state which D can’t prevent (Hill v Baxter)
Defence will fail where D has partial control of there actions (AG Ref (No 2 of 1992)

Question 3

Explain the legal principle of Hill v Baxter

Answer 3

D Drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car. D should not be liable when his actions are no fault of his own, i.e someone struck by a stone, stung by bees or overcame by a sudden illness

Question 4

Explain the legal principle of AG Ref (No 2 of 1992)

Answer 4

D was a lorry driver, after driving several hours he drove onto the hard shoulder at speed and collided with a car which had broken down, killing two people. He said he was suffering from a condition known as ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver into a trace like state. However, this only causes partial loss of control so automatism couldn’t be relied upon.

Question 5

Explain due to an external factor

Answer 5

The state must be caused by an external factor i.e diabetes, a blow to their head, medicine, bee sting
can’t be an internal cause (R v Quick)

Question 6

Explain the legal principle for R v Quick

Answer 6

D a diabetic who had taken insulin but haunts eaten enough food. Caused him to have low blood sugar levels which affected his brain. He assaulted one of his patients. The acts were caused by an external factor the insulin
Automatism a successful defence here.
Insulin without having food or enough causes hypoglycaemia

Question 7

Explain the self-induced automatism

Answer 7

Where D is aware that their actions will bring on a state of automatism, then the rules of intoxication apply. (R v Coley)
(R v Bailey)

Question 8

Explain the legal principle of R v Coley

Answer 8

D was taken cannabis which led to him attacking his neighbours. As D induced his condition by taken an intoxicating substance he couldn’t rely on automatism.

Question 9

Explain the legal principle of R v Bailey

Answer 9

D failed to eat enough after taking his insulin, he went to resolve an issue with his ex’s new partner, he asked for some sugar and water. He failed to eat leading to him becoming aggressive and hit the V over the head with an iron bar.

Question 10

Explain specific intent offence + Self induced automatism

Answer 10

If D causes a specific intent offence then they can rely on the defence ( R v Herdle)

Question 11

Explain Basic intent offence + Self induced automatism

Answer 11

Where the D causes a basic intent offence then the defence will fail ( R v Lipman)

Question 12

Explain the legal principle of R v Lipman

Answer 12

D had taken LSD and strangled V as he believed her to be a gainer serpent at the centre of the earth. Defence not granted and was held that self-induced automatism isn’t available for basic intent crimes.