Automatism

Question 1

What is the definition of Automatism?

Answer 1

Is an act which is done by the muscles without the control of the mind e.g spasm or an act done by a person who is not conscious of their actions e.g. sleepwalkers.

Question 2

What must be established to successfully claim automatism?

Answer 2

1. Total loss of voluntary control
2. Caused by an external factor
3. Cannot be self-induced

Question 3

What is meant by a total loss of voluntary control?

Answer 3

D must show that there was a complete loss of voluntary control in order to reply on the defence.

Broome V Perkins-

• Hypoglycaemic state due to diabetes, crashed into another car.
• Not suffered total loss of control as he had been able to break.

Question 4

What is meant by an external factor?

Answer 4

Loss of control must be caused by an external factor, difference between insanity and automatism.

Hill V Baxter-

• Was unconscious after claimed he was hit by sudden illness.
• Couldn’t rely on defence as had shown some control + need medical evidence in order to prove.

Question 5

What will be considered to be an external factor?

Answer 5

Courts have said things such as; blow to the head, being stung by a bee, reflex action, severe shock or PTSD will all be external.

R V Quick-

• Hyperglycaemic state and attacked patient, taken insulin but had not eaten.
• The external factor of not eating had caused the state therefore automatism successful.

Question 6

What happens if the automatism was self-induced by drink or drugs?

Answer 6

If automatism caused by voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol then D cannot rely on automatism.

R V Lipman-

• Taken LSD, hallucinated that he was being attacked by snakes and strangled gf and pushed sheet down her mouth.
• Self-induced so no defence.

Question 7

What happens if the self-induced automatism was caused by something other than intoxication?

Answer 7

If Ds automatism caused by something other than drink/drugs may be able to use the defence. Dependent on whether they knew there was a risk of getting into such a condition.

R V Bailey-

• Took insulin, drank mixture of sugar and water but didn’t eat.
• Hit someone on head with iron bar, claimed couldn’t control due to hypoglycaemic state.
• Originally said not available as self-induced but then stated that it could be used as defence to S.18 GBH as specific intent but could not be a defence for S.20 GBH as he was reckless.
• Self induced will be a defence to specific intent crime but not to basic intent crimes unless they cannot prove the defendant was reckless.

Question 8

What happened in Kay V Butterworth?

Answer 8

• Fell asleep at the wheel ran into group of soldiers. Claimed he fell asleep as been working all night
• Couldn’t use the defence as automatism had been self-induced as he should have taken a break.

Question 9

What is the effect of automatism?

Answer 9

If D seeks to rely on automatism, the prosecution must prove it beyond all reasonable doubt.
It acts as a complete defence and provides a full acquittal.