Automatism
Cards (8)
- Definition:
- 'Act done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm or a reflex action or a convulsion or an act done by a person who is not conscious'
- D can be unconscious by uncontrolled, aware of what is going on by incapable (Altered state)
- External factor - automatism negates from unlawfulness of AR
- Coley - 'Complete destruction of voluntary control'
- Defence:
- Common law, complete defence, not in control of their bodily movements
- Involuntary - no MR
- General defence - includes SL
- Procedure:
- Operates in line with woolmington, D bears evidential burden
- C - 'Crucial principle... cannot rely on the defence of automatism without providing some evidence of it'
- Prosecution - disprove
- Aim to show if D retained some control of their actions - external factor rather than internally
- Involuntariness required:
- Defence operates strictly, requires a total loss of voluntary control
- Bell - attacked while driving, swarm of bees or a malevolent passenger
- Not just being unable to remember is sufficient or control impulse
- Destruction of voluntary control
- A total destruction of voluntary control:
- Partial reduction is insufficient - AGs ref (white lines)
- Self-induced automatism:
- Unavailable where drinking/drugs (voluntary intoxication - DPP v majewski)
- R v Lipman - LSD, strangled girlfriend
- Specific intent - D lacks MR
- Basic intent - unaware of risk - self-induced automatism
- Reckless - Did D know there was risk of getting into such a state
- Key V Butterworth - insulin
- Self-induced automatism:
- Hardie - did not know valium would have this reaction
- No automatism if aware of the risk of bringing on the condition as viewed as being subjectively reckless
- Bailey - failed to eat, knew it would have this effect
- Illegal drugs will always fail
- Reflex actions:
- Ryan - no real application to the case of a fully conscious man who out himself in a situation
- Voluntary act
- Bratty - accepted
- Circumstance dependent