Automatism

• Applies to a situation where D is not legally insane but because of some external factor they are unable to control what they're doing
• Defined where?


  Bratty: 'any act done by the muscles without the control of the mind such as a spasm, reflex action or convulsion, or an act done by a person not conscious of what he is doing' eg through concussion or sleepwalking
• External?


  Automatism
• Broome v Perkins


  Automatism not afforded because despite his condition being caused by an excess amount of insulin, there were times when he had exercised conscious control over his car. Like Clark it must be a COMPLETE loss of control
• AG's Ref No2 of 1992


  D had been in a state of automatism referred to as 'driving without awareness' induced by 'repetitive visual stimulus on long journeys on straight flat roads' which the jury allowed and he was acquitted. CA held automatism shouldn't have been left to the jury and the state of 'driving without awareness' was not capable of founding a defence of automatism
• Key case?


  Established automatism- involuntary conduct which is not brought about by a disease of the mind but through factors
• R v T


  PTSD can amount to automatism if it was caused by an external factor (eg a rape that caused the dream like state)
• Bailey


  D was charged under s18, making his offence a specific intent crime. Even self induced automatism could be relied upon as evidence that D didn't have the necessary mens rea for offence (this is consistent with the availability of self induced intoxication). However for the s20 (basic) the court held that self induced automatism wouldn't provide a defence where there was evidence that D had been reckless in failing to eat after taking the insulin. The recklessness here is proof that D had known that his failure to eat might make his actions more aggressive or uncontrollable.
• What will a successful automatism defence afford you?

  A full acquittal