Evaluation

• Evaluation

  -reform=more protection for victims e.g battered wife and sexual infidelity -pregents jury acquit murder out of sympathy lesser charge instead -sexual infedality isn’t defined within act-confusing how jury take into account along side other things

  -act badly drafted as loss of control not defined
• In 2013, the Law Commission commented that as insanity and automatism are so closely linked, that if one area were to be reformed, both areas would need to be
• Despite the large amounts of criticism aimed at the defence, there have been no significant changes to it
• Lack of treatment


  • Where a person is found not guilty by reason of insanity, they are subjected to a court order of some kind (hospital, guardianship, treatment, supervision)
  • For a person who is able to use automatism, the current law acquits them, without the need for any treatment
  • If a person with a sleep disorder commits an offence and successfully pleads automatism would be acquitted and the court will not be able to order medical treatment
  • This can be problematic moving forward, given that the D may never seek treatment and can be prone to attack while in that state again and the law here does not prevent future recurrences
• Non-insane automatism


  Automatism that is not caused by insanity
• Insane automatism


  Automatism that is caused by insanity
• The Law Commission in 2013 commented that the different between insane and non-insane automatism is 'incoherent and arbitrary'
• The 'insane' posing little or no threat, rather than those acquitted could be, given that they are free to be back into society and potentially harm and react in the same way
• The current law on automatism and insanity provides no medical distinction and so provides conflicting results
• There is also inconsistency between automatism and voluntary intoxication
• These conflicts in decisions show that the court need a more consistent approach to illnesses and what D can use as a defence