Automatism Knowledge Summary

• Definition:

  R v Bratty, automatism is defined as 'any act done by the muscles without the control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex actions of convulsion, or an act done by a person not conscious of what he is doing.'
• 1. External cause - D's state of automatism (acting without the control of the mind) must arise from an external cause (outside the body).

  • An external source is something which happens TO the defendant rather than something which occurs inside them.
  • Examples could include: being attacked by a swarm of bees; Hill v Baxter, R v T; rape causing PTSD or a sneezing fit; R v Whoolley.
• 2. Involuntary - D's actions must be completely involuntary and the defence is limited by the strict requirement that the defendant must have suffered a total loss of voluntary self-control, Att-General's Reference (No 2 of 1992)

  • Any indication of some level of consciousness will result in the defence being withdrawn.
  • In Watmore v Jenkins, D suffered progressive hypoglycemia and gradually lost consciousness over the course of a five-mile drive. His defence of automatism was dismissed as he had not suffered a 'complete destruction of voluntary control.'
• 3. The automatism must not be self-induced

  • R v Hardie, a person who knowingly takes alcohol or drugs likely to make his behaviour aggressive or unpredictable would be deemed to have induced their own automatism so defence not be available.
  • If the d commits a specific intent crime (mr is intention only) then automatism can be a defence as the d lacks the mens rea needed.
• • R v Bailey, self-induced automatism could not be relied on as a defence to basic-intent offences;
  • If D has been reckless in causing their own state of automatism, this will satisfy the mr and automatism will fail.
  • If the automatism is caused by intoxication then as illustrated in R v Majewksi the D is reckless in getting intoxicated so automatism will fail.
  • If D is unaware their actions will put them in an automatic state then the defence of automatism will apply as shown in R v Hardie.
• Outcome:

  If successful = acquitted

  If unsuccessful = convicted