Automatism

• What is automatism in legal terms?


  Automatism is an act done by the muscles without control by the mind.
• What distinguishes non-insane automatism from insane automatism?


  Non-insane automatism is caused by external factors, while insane automatism is related to mental illness.
• Which case defined automatism as an act done by muscles without control by the mind?


  Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963).
• What are the elements required to establish a defence of automatism?


  A total loss of voluntary control caused by an external factor.
• Who bears the burden of proof in automatism cases?


  The burden of proof is on the prosecution to show the defendant was acting voluntarily.
• What was the outcome of AG Ref (No 2 of 1992) regarding the defence of automatism?


  The court ruled that there must be a total destruction of voluntary control for the defence to apply.
• In Hill v Baxter (1958), why was the defendant's claim of automatism rejected?


  The defendant was found to be driving with skill, indicating he was not acting involuntarily.
• What hypothetical situation could support a claim of total loss of voluntary control in Hill v Baxter?


  If a swarm of bees entered the vehicle causing the driver to lose complete control.
• What was the outcome of R v Whoolley (1997) regarding sneezing fits?


  The court allowed the defence of automatism due to the sneezing fit being an involuntary action.
• In Quick (1973), what external factor caused the defendant's automatism?


  The defendant's hypoglycaemia caused by taking insulin without eating.
• What was the significance of R v T (1990) in relation to external factors causing automatism?


  The case established that exceptional stress can be an external factor leading to automatism.
• What is the general position regarding self-induced automatism?


  Self-induced automatism is available for specific intent offences if the defendant has no mens rea.
• Under what condition is self-induced automatism not available for basic intent offences?


  It is not available if the defendant was reckless in becoming automated.
• What was the outcome of R v Bailey (1983) regarding the defence of automatism?


  The judge refused the defence because the defendant was reckless in causing his hypoglycaemic state.
• How did R v Hardie (1984) impact the understanding of self-induced automatism?


  The court ruled that if the defendant is not reckless in becoming automated, they can use the defence even if self-induced.
• In the case of Georgia, what defence might she raise for killing her mother?


  Georgia might raise the defence of self-induced automatism due to hypoglycaemia.
• What defence could Pip potentially use after attacking his colleague?


  Pip could potentially use the defence of self-induced automatism due to hypoglycaemia.
• What defence might Gloria raise after attacking her neighbor?


  Gloria might raise the defence of self-induced automatism due to the effects of the tablets she took.
• What is the internal/external distinction in automatism cases?


  The distinction affects the process and outcome based on whether the automatism is caused by internal (insanity) or external factors.
• What are the implications of the standard of proof in automatism cases?


  The standard of proof differs depending on whether the automatism is classified as internal or external.
• What are some arguments for restricting the defence of automatism?


  Arguments include concerns about accountability and the potential for abuse of the defence.
• What is the definition of automatism?

  Automatism is a state where a person acts without conscious control.
• What is the difference between insane and non-insane automatism?


  Insane automatism is related to mental illness, while non-insane automatism is caused by external factors.
• Give three examples of external causes that could lead to a successful defence of automatism.


  Hypoglycaemia, exceptional stress, and physical injury.
• What limitations exist on the defence of automatism when it is self-induced?


  Self-induced automatism is not available for basic intent offences if the defendant was reckless in becoming automated.
• Name a case where self-induced automatism was allowed as a defence.

  R v Hardie (1984).
• What are some arguments for restricting the defence of automatism?


  Concerns about accountability and potential abuse of the defence.