automatism

• automatism is a full defence - defined in Bratty vs AG
• bratty vs AG - an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm.
• the burden of proof is on the pros to disprove it
• cases in order

  bratty v ag

  hill vs baxter

  ag ref 2 1992

  r vs t

  quick

  hennessey

  burgess

  bailey

  majewski

  hardie

  coley
• hill vs baxter - there must be a total loss of voluntary control
• ag ref 2 1992 - must not a reduced or partial loss of control
• must be caused by an external factor
• r vs t - includes blows to head, hypnotism, exceptional stress
• quick - if diabetics automatic state is from the external factor of insulin they can use the defence
• hennessey - if a diabetics state was too high because they didnt take insulin then it is insanity not automatism
• burgess - sleepwalking is included if from an external factor
• is the automatic state self induced
• bailey - if d knows conduct will bring on automatic state then it is a defence to specific intent but not a basic intent crime
• if charged with a basic intent the pros must prove d was reckless in his self-induced automatism
• majewski - if caused through intoxicating substances then d cannot use defence
• hardie - if d doesnt know his actions will lead to automatic state they havent been reckless
• coley - if d commits basic intent crime with prior fault then the defence is unavailable