Insanity and Automatism

• Both insanity and automatism are mental capacity defences developed through common law.
• Insanity: definition - M'Naghten Rules 1843
• 1. DEFECT OF REASON – D’s power of reasoning must be impaired. Clarke - absentmindedness is not a defect of reason
• 2. DISEASE OF THE MIND:

  Legal term not medical (Kemp)

  Must be an internal cause (Sullivan)

  Doesn’t need to be permananent; can be ‘transient and intermittent’(Quick)

  Bratty - epilepsy - Lord Denning stated: an internal factor that manifests itself in violence + is likely to reoccur (continuing danger theory)
• 3. D doesn't know (a) nature & quality of act

  OR (b) did not know it was wrong (legally) – Windle. If D knows it is legally wrong, D cannot use defence
• Burden & Effect: BOP is on the defence, on the balance of probabilities.

  Special verdict - 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
• Judge can impose:

  A hospital order

  A guardianship order

  A supervision order

  An absolute discharge. (Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991)
• Automatism: defined in Bratty - Lord Denning 'an act which is done by the muscles without the control of the mind'.
• Total loss of voluntary control (TLVC)

  • Broome v Perkins not automatism as D had some control over the car

  AG Ref (No2 of 1992) must be a total destruction of voluntary control.
• 2. External factor - needs medical evidence

  Hill v Baxter - 'swarm of bees' / 'blow to the head'; sneezing. 

  Quick - hypodiabetic;   concussion, etc.
• 3. Cannot be self-induced 

  Kay v Butterworth - falling asleep when tired was self-induced
• Specific Intent offences

  If offence charged is one of specific intent, then self induced automatism can be defence. This is because D lacks required MR for the offence.
• Basic intent offences

   

  If offence charged is basic intent then the rule is that the D cannot use defence of automatism if D has brought about automatic state by being reckless.
• Bailey (1983) states:

  1.       If D has been reckless in getting into state of automatism, self induced automatism cannot be defence. Subjective recklessness is sufficient for the MR of crimes of basic intent.

  2.       Where self- induced automatic state caused through drink or illegal drugs etc, D cannot use defence of automatism. Majewski – becoming voluntarily intoxicated is reckless conduct.

  3.       Where D doesn’t know that his actions are likely to lead to a self induced automatic state where he might commit offence, he hasn’t been reckless and can use defence. (Hardie)
• Automatism:

  Burden & Effect: BOP – D’t raises defence and prosecution must then disprove

  Standard of proof - beyond all reasonable doubt

  Full defence -> acquittal