Automatism

• Automatism is set out in the case of Bratty v AG.
• It is defined as 'an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing'.
• If the D seeks to rely on automatism, they must raise the defence (they will usually require medical evidence to do so). Once the defence has been raised it is on the prosecution to disprove it. Automatism acts as a complete defence and a successful plea means that the D will be acquitted.
• Hill v Baxter


  The D must be in an automatic state through external cause, cannot be voluntary.
• AG Ref No2 of 1992


  D must have lost the ability to control their actions rather than having reduced or partial control.
• R v T


  The cause of automatism is external and a complete defence.
• Quick, Burgess


  External causes could include: a blow to the head, an attack by a swarm of bees, sneezing, hypnotism, the effect of a drug.
• If self-induced, D knows his conduct is likely to bring on an automatic state, and the offence is one of specific intent then there can be a defence as long as D lacks the mens rea (Bailey).
• If the D is charged with a basic intent offence, the prosecution must prove that the D has been reckless in his self-induced automatism. If it is caused through drink/illegal drugs/intoxicating substances, D will be unable to plead (Majewski).
• Hardie


  Where D does not know his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state he has not been reckless.
• Coley


  But, if the D commits the actus reus of a basic intent crime with prior fault, the defence is unavailable.
• stress (r v t)
• if from external state of insulin (quick)
• sleepwalking (burgess)
• commits basic intent time with prior intent cannot rely on the defenece (coley)