Automatism

• Automatism

  An act done by the muscles without control of the mind such as a spasm, reflex or convulsion
• Automatism can be a complete defence
• Evidential burden

  Defendant to bring in some evidence of the defence. Prosecution must then disprove this beyond reasonable doubt
• Involuntary Acts

  Acts done by the muscles without control of the mind
• Bratty (1963) gives the definition of automatism
• Bratty could not claim automatism as epilepsy is an 'internal factor' which means the defence would be insanity
• Automatism is a complete defence, insanity is indefinite detention
• R v T (1990)

  Rape victim was suffering from PTSD and committed robbery.

  PTSD is an external factor. She was acting totally unconscious of her actions and was able to claim automatism
• External Factor

  Must be caused by an external factor. This is the vital distinction between insanity and automatism. The distinction between them is often illustrated by looking at 2 aspects of diabetes that caused a diabetic to act involuntarily
• Quick

  Hypoglycaemic (has low blood sugar) because of taking insulin (an external factor), can claim automatism
• Hennessy

  Hypoglycaemic because he failed to take insulin (an internal factor), can only use insanity as a defence
• Self-induced automatism

  Defendant was responsible for bringing about the automatism, e.g. drinking too much, taking illegal drugs, failing to manage one's own health
• Specific intent crimes have a mens rea of intent only, basic intent crimes have a mens rea of intent or recklessness
• Majewski

  Went on a 24 hour drinking binge and committed ABH and criminal damage, claimed automatism but court stated he could not use the defence as his crimes had a mens rea of recklessness, and he was reckless in getting drunk
• Coley (2013)

  Could not use the defence of automatism as it was self-induced by his use of strong cannabis
• Involuntary intoxication

  Includes defendant being unaware they had drunk alcohol or taken drugs, or they had taken legal drugs which had an unexpected side effect
• Hardie (1984)

  Took girlfriend's Valium to calm down, set fire to wardrobe, CA held had that as the drug had an unexpected effect the automatism was involuntary
• If successful, automatism will be a complete defence
• To prove automatism the defendant must bring in some evidence that

  they were acting involuntarily, and what caused them to act in this way must have been brought about by an external factor
• Automatism was defined in the case of Bratty as: an act done by the muscles without control of the mind such as a spasm, reflex or convulsion
• The defendant must show that his act was:

  Involuntary

  Due to an external factor

  His mind is not controlling his limbs in a purposeful manner
• Bratty (1963)


  B strangled a woman with her stocking. He suffered from epilepsy and said a ‘blackness’ had come over him and he could not remember doing it.
• AG Ref (No2 of 1992) Must be ‘total loss of voluntary control’


  Lorry driver killed 2 people when his lorry crashed into stationary car. He was suffering from a condition called ‘driving without consciousness’. Defence failed as he only had partial loss of awareness which was not automatism.