automatism

Question 1

basic definition

Answer 1

When the accused lacked conscious control over his or her acts because of some external cause.

Question 2

main case automatism

Answer 2

Ross v HM Adv 1991 JC 210
Facts: After his drink was spiked, he began to lunge around with a knife, and in doing so, committed a number of crimes.
Held: It was unfair to convict someone in these kinds of circumstances in which, through no fault of their own, the person is unable to form the mens rea. (However, this defence can also be used for strict liability offences, so it probably isn’t actually about mens rea.)
Significance: Defence of automatism was established.

Question 3

requirements automatism

Answer 3

• total alienation of reason
• caused by an external factor
• not self-induced
• accused not bound to foresee

Question 4

total alienation of reason

Answer 4

Cardle v Mulrainey 1992 SLT 1152
Facts: Accused charged with crimes of taking a car and driving without insurance. He had broken into the car. He argued that his drink had been spiked with amphetamines. He retained some of his reasoning powers, knowing that it was wrong to do this.
Legal issue: Accused argued that even though he understood what he was doing, he was unable to control what he was doing.
Held: Initially, the judge said he should be excused in these circumstances. It was then decided that where the accused is aware of the nature and quality of their actions and that they are wrong, they cannot be said to be suffering from a total alienation of reason. You therefore can’t use the defence of automatism.
Significance: You can’t use this defence where you are aware of the nature and quality of their actions, and that they are wrong. In scots law, this defence operates on the basis of a test of reasoning powers.

Question 5

what does it mean to say that the accused knows that their actions are wrong?

Answer 5

HM Adv v Sharp 1927 JC 66
Facts: A man had a large family to support and was suffering from serious financial difficulties. He was charged with killing 2 of his young children to ease the burden on his pregnant wife when he left her.
Held: He’d lost the ability to distinguish moral right from wrong, even if he still knew legal right and wrong. This was enough for total alienation of reason.

Question 6

clear cut external factor case

Answer 6

HM Adv v Ritchie 1925
Facts: Ritchie had been injured during WWI, and his shrapnel injuries were said to have contributed to the reckless driving, which was held to be an external factor.

Question 7

external factor confusion case

Answer 7

MacLeod v Mathieson 1993 SCCR 488 (Sh Ct)
Significance: Hypoglycaemia could constitute an external factor, and so might found the basis of a plea of automatism. Even though this seems to conflict with Ross v HM Adv 1991 JC 210

Question 8

external factor confusion case #2

Answer 8

Finegan v Heywood 2000 JC 444
Facts: Accused got very drunk, came home and went to sleep, and then started sleepwalking. He stole his friend’s car keys and committed a number of driving offences.
Legal issue: Was parasomnia an external or internal factor?
Held: On appeal the court suggested that parasomnia can allow the defence of automatism, however not in this specific case. This was because the accused had voluntarily drunk alcohol. He also knew that he was prone to paranoia.
Significance: This meant that the self-induced nature and the fact that he could have foreseen it went on to play a big role in their decision that he could not use this defence.

Question 9

not self-induced

Answer 9

Brennan v HM Adv 1997 JC 38
Facts: Accused had voluntarily consumed a large amount of alcohol. (20-25 pints, a sherry, some LSD) and then stabbed and killed his father.
Held: No defence here. It was self-induced.

Question 10

accused not bound to foresee

Answer 10

Ebsworth v HM Adv 1992 SLT 1161
Facts: Accused had broken his leg, and had taken 50 paracetamol and a bunch of very strong pain killers, which went against medical advice. He went on to commit crimes.
Held: taking such a large amount of drugs without medical advice was very reckless. The accused was bound to have seen that something like this could have happened.

Question 11

voluntary intoxication

Answer 11

Alison, Principles of the Criminal Law of Scotland (1832)
Voluntary intoxication is absolutely not a defence in Scots law.