Automatism Essay Model Answer

• It might be possible for the D to raise the defence of automatism. The definition of automatism was given in the case of Bratty as: 'an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or convulsion, or an act done by a person not conscious of what he is doing.'
• The defence, once raised by X must be disproved by the prosecution on the balance of probabilities. Whether or not there is evidence of automatism is a matter of law for the judge to decide. Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty (totally acquitted).
• The first requirement is that the defendant'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.
• The second requirement is that the defendant'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). This means that the defendant must have NO control over their actions.
• Any indication of some level of consciousness means the defence is not available. In Watmore v Jenkins, the defendant 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.'
• Finally, in order for this defence to apply, the automatism must not be self-induced, R v Bailey (1983). This deals with situations the d knows that their actions will put them into an automatic state and it will depend on the type of offence committed as to whether the defence will still be available.
• • If the d commits a specific intent crime (where the mens rea is intention only) then self-induced automatism can be a defence as the d lacks the mens rea needed.
• • If the d commits a basic intent crime (where the mens rea is intention or recklessness) then the relevant rules have been illustrated in R v Bailey. Firstly, if the d has been subjectively reckless in getting themselves into an automatic state then this will be enough to satisfy the mens rea and automatism will fail.
• If the automatism is caused by intoxication then as illustrated in Majewski the d is reckless in getting intoxicated so automatism will fail. Finally, if the d is unaware their actions will put them into an automatic state then the defence of automatism will still apply as shown in R v Hardie.
• In conclusion, X would/would not be able to rely on this defence.