Automatism

• Introduction


  -Automatism is a complete defence and will result in the D's acquittal if pleaded successfully (not guilty).

  -The D must show that he committed the offence involuntary due to an external factor it is then for the prosecution to disprove.

  -There are two elements to the defence: D must show that his act was: Involuntary, Due to an external factor

  -Automatism has been defined in the case of:

  Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (1963)

  Lord Denning defined automatism;

  'The requirement that [a crime] should be a voluntary act is essential... acts done by the muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm, a reflex or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking' [are not criminal]. -Lord Denning's definition covered two types of automatism:
• Insane automatism


  where the cause of the automatic state is due to an internal disease of the mind within the M' Naughten Rules- so plead insanity defence.-third rule of inasnairh is unconcious or impaired
• Non- insane automatism


  where the cause of the automatic state is due to an external cause which causes the D to act involuntary, so plead automatism defence. -D's act must be involuntary

  D's act must be involuntary in that his mind is not controlling his limbs in a purposeful manner. This is a defence because the AR committed by the D is not voluntary. The D does not have to have the required MR for the offence.
• Self induced automatism


  -his is where the defendant knows that his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state, an example being a diabetic and failing to

  eat after taking insulin or a person who drinks when they are on medication.

  -How this defence works depends on whether the offence committed is one of specific intent or basic intent.
• Self induced specific intent


  -Offences for which the mens rea required is only intent.

  -These offences include murder and section 18 OAPA 1861.

  -For both offences, the mens rea is intent only.

  -Change the mens rea to recklessness for the offence.

  -This must be proved by the prosecution.

  -But if the defendant was reckless in getting into the automatic state, he

  cannot use the defence.
• Self induced with basic intent


  -Offences where recklessness is part of the mens rea.

  -This includes manslaughter, Section 20 and Section 47 OAPA 1861.

  -This can also include some property offences such as criminal damage.

  -Can apply the defence in full

  -But if the self-induced automatic state is caused through drink or illegal drugs the defendant cannot use the defence of automatism since

  -This is illustrated by

  DPP v Majewski (1976).

  R v Coley

  (2013).
• Specific intent automatism
• Self induced automatism through drugs and alcohol


  If the automatism was caused by voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol, the D cannot rely on this defence and will be subject to the rules of intoxication instead (R v Lipman).-r v majewski-if state caused through drunk pro illegal drunk defendant can’t use Dpp v majewski and r c coley
• Self induced automatism through other substances


  e D's automatism is caused by something other than alcohol or drugs such as medication, he may be able to plead the defence to specific intent crimes but not those requiring basic intent, if the conduct was reckless. -r c Bailey-insulin diegetic defence for specific -r c hardie-not know actions lead to self induced state and commit an offence not reckless can use defence-r v hardie
• Wilson et al


  Conscious mind disococuated from part of mind which controls actions
• Non self induced automatism 


  -hill v baxter-prove concept no fault when d was in automatic state through external cause

  -approved earlier judgment in may buttersiwth

  -exegetes stress can be external factor-r v t

  -a-g ref(no2 of 1992)-reduced or partial control not sufficent

  -r v quick -insulin