Defences: Automatism

• Criminal Defences:

  • the defendant is not claiming they are innocent - they accept they did the crime, but put forward a "Defence" as reason why they should escape punishment.
  • can be separated into 2 types of defences:

  1. Mental Capacity Defences
  2. General Defences
• Mental Capacity Defences:

  • the defendant did not have the mental capacity to fulfil the mens rea of the offence.
  • Insanity
  • Automatism
  • Intoxication
• General Defences:

  • The circumstances of the crime are such that it would not be right, just or fair to punish the defendant for their actions.
  • Self-Defence
  • Consent
  • Necessity
  • Duress
• Automatism:

  • this covers situations where the body reacts without any control of the mind.
  • examples:
  • blow to the head
  • sneezing
  • hypnotism
  • drugs
  • reflexes
  • attacked by a swarm of bees
• Automatism was defined in Bratty 1963 case:

  • "An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex actions or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking"
  • It is a Complete Defence -> means if successful D is Not Guilty and walks free from court.
• Elements of Automatism:

  1. The D's actions were Involuntary
  2. There was a Total Loss of Control
  3. This was due to External Factors
  4. Self-Induced Automatism can only be used for Specific Intent Crimes.
• Automatism caused by external factors.

  Outcome - not guilty, complete defence - D walks free

  (difference from insanity)
• D's Actions were Involuntary:

  • D must be acting through choice - it must be completely involuntary
  • Hill v Baxter 1958
• D's Actions were Involuntary - Hill v Baxter 1958:

  • Lorry driver claimed automatism stating that he blacked out due to a mystery illness when he went through a stop sign and hit another car.
  • The Court said he had not proven enough for automatism and that he had merely fallen asleep at the wheel. He was guilty.
  • The Court approved a list of involuntary acts including loss on consciousness, being hit by a stone, sudden illness, and being attacked by a swarm of bees.
• Total Loss of Control:

  • If D only partially loses control of their actions this will not be enough.
  • AG's Ref (2 of 1992) 1993
• Total Loss of Control - AG's Ref (2 of 1992) 1993:

  • Lorry driver crashed into a car on the hard shoulder. He claimed automatism as he said the extended motor way driving had lead to him being in a 'tance-like state'.
  • The Court rejected this defence and he was guilty.
  • The 'trance-like state' only leads to a partial loss of control and therefore is not enough for automatism.
• External Factors:

  • Whatever causes the D to act must be external - so not arising from some internal condition. Is the difference between Insanity and Automatism
  • R v T 1990
  • has included PTSD
  • It caused a rape victim to commit a robbery.
  • is best demonstrated by referring to the diabetes cases from insanity:
  • R v Hennessy 1989
  • R v Quick 1973
• R v Hennessy 1989:

  • Hyperglycaemia from diabetes was classed as an internal factor and a 'disease of the mind' leading to a finding of insanity.

  R v Quick 1973:

  • Hypoglycaemia from diabetes was classed as an external factor and therefore was not class as insanity.
• Self-Induced Automatism:

  • If the "automatic state" that D is in has been brought on by D's own actions. the defence is only available if it is a specific intent crime.
  • Q: What is meant by 'self-induced automatism'?
  • Q: What is meant by 'specific intent' and 'basic intent'?
• Self-Induced Automatism - What is meant by 'self-induced automatism'?

  • D knows their conduct is likely to bring about an automatic state which could lead to aggression or violence.
• Self-Induced Automatism - What is meant by 'specific intent' and 'basic intent'?

  • Specific Intent = mens rea of the offence is intention only
  • Basic Intent = mens rea of the offence includes intention or recklessness.
• Self-Induced Automatism - R v Bailey 1983:

  3 following rules for Self-Induced Automatism for Basic Intent crimes:

  1. If the cause of automatism is due to recklessness from the D (e.g. not taking meds when required), this amounts to recklessness for mens rea, so automatism is not defence.
  2. If cause of automatism is voluntary intoxication (drink/drugs) amounts to recklessness so there is no defence (DPP v Majewski)
  3. If D doesn't know their actions will lead to automatic state, then they aren't reckless and defence is allowed (R v Hardie)