automatism

• full defence - results in acquittal
• defined in (bratty v ag)
• an act done by the muscles without any control of the mind such as a spasm or convulsion
• burden of proof on prosecution to disprove it
• 1. must be a total loss of voluntary control (hill v baxter)
• not a reduced or partial loss of control (ags ref no2)
• 2. must be caused by an external factor
• includes blows to the head, attack by swarm of bees, hypnotism, effect of a drug, exceptional stress (r v t) etc
• if diabetics automatic state is from external factor of insulin can use the defence (quick)
• if diabetics state was because they didn't take their insulin and sugar levels were too high it is insanity not automatism (hennessy)
• sleepwalking included if from external factor (burgess)
• 3. is it self induced?
• if d know conduct will bring on automatic state, then defence to a specific intent crime not a basic intent crime (bailey)
• if charged with basic intent crime, prosecution must prove d was reckless in his self induced automatism
• if caused through intoxicating substances, cannot use defence (majewski)
• if d doesn't know actions will lead to automatic state they haven't been reckless (hardie)
• if d commits basic intent crime with prior fault, defence is unavailable (coley)