Automatism

• What is automatism?

  'An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind or by a person who is not conscious of what they are doing.’ This was defined in Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
• What is R v Quick and how does it link to automatism?

  The D was a diabetic who had taken insulin (an external factor) which affected his brain. He was a nurse and attacked a patient. He could use the defence as was an external factor that caused his behaviour
• What is Attorney General Reference (No. 2 1992) and how does it link to automatism?

  The D was a lorry driver who was driving for a long period of time. He hit a stationary car, killing 2 people. He said he suffered from ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver into a trance like state after driving long distances on a featureless motorway. It didn’t amount to automatism as it only causes a partial loss of control and to use the defence there must be a total loss of voluntary control.
• What is R v T and how does it link to automatism?

  The D stabbed the V and leaned into their car to take their bag.The medical evidence shows she was suffering from PTSD after being raped 3 days earlier. This was viewed as an external source so could use the defence.
• What basic intent cases can be used for self-induced automatism?

  DPP v Majewski: D drank lots of alcohol and began to attack the landlord. He was charged with a basic intent crime of ABH. The court ruled being voluntarily intoxicated is a reckless course of conduct so automatism isn’t a defence for basic intent crimes where the MR is recklessness

  R v Hardie: D took his ex’s valium thinking it would calm him down as he was depressed. He then set the wardrobe on fire but didn’t know what he was doing. The value didn’t have its usual effect. So if the D doesn’t know their actions are likely to lead to a self-induced state in which they may commit a crime, they haven’t been reckless so can use the defence
• What specific intent cases can be used for self-induced automatism?

  R v Bailey: D was a diabetic who failed to eat enough after taking insulin. He went to sort matters out between himself and his ex’s new boyfriend. After he asked for some sugar and water, he became aggressive and hit the V over the head with an iron bar. There was not enough evidence of automatism so was charged with s.18

  R v Coley: D had been taking cannabis which led him to attack his neighbours. The court ruled he couldn’t use it as he had induced his condition by voluntary intoxication.