Chapter 2: Automatism

Question 1

What is automatism

Answer 1

When one brings up this defence, it is a denial (involuntary) of both the actus reus and the mens reaand therefore,not guilty

Question 2

What are the 3 elements of an act (posititve act)

Answer 2

• concious
• voluntary
• movement of muscles

Question 3

What are the 2 types of automatism

Answer 3

Insane automatism (insanity)

Non-insane automatism (automatism)

Don’t get mixed up. Grey area in the law

Question 4

What are positive acts

Answer 4

• Concious
• Voluntary
• Movement of muscles

Question 5

What are negative acts (omission)

Answer 5

• Concious
• Voluntary
• No movement of muscles

Question 6

What is the general rule of principle and policy in criminal law

Answer 6

Kay V Butterworth - one must understand the study of criminal law can be due do principles of the case, and sometimes, due to policy of consideration, it is only just and fair, that at all times, the court must adhere to principles of the law. In this case however, principle led to absurdity making a driver who slept off, not guilty. This is not justice, hence court invoked policy, making the defendant liable for the crime

Principle first used, if not proper decision (moral) then use policy

Question 7

What are the 2 types of non-insane automatism

Answer 7

Physical involuntariness

Mental involuntariness

Question 8

What is physical involuntariness

Answer 8

When one has complete destruction of voluntary control over their limbs/conduct

Note: Not sufficient enough if defendant’s mind was acting imperfectly if he or she is still reacting to stimuli and controlling his limbs in a purposive way

(Not even trance like state)

Question 9

Ryan v The Queen [1967]

Answer 9

Held: High court judge, agreed to the argument of reflex, however, the defendant came to the petrol station with a loaded gun and the safety latch removed. These 2 evidences of facts showed that the defendant indented to use the gun should the need arise

Question 10

Broome v Perkins

Answer 10

Facts: D was charged with driving without due care and attention. He had been driving erratically for about six miles. He claimed he was suffering from hypoglycaemia

Held: Court held that the D should be convicted as his erratic driving showed his act was voluntary at times (not complete destruction)

Question 11

AG’s Reference No.2 of 1992 [1993]

Answer 11

Held: Here courts again emphasised that there must be total failure of control. D crashed into a broken down vehicle; because he was acquitted the issue of whether his condition amounted to automatism came before the Court of Appeal in the form of reference

Experts say he was driving without awareness “…the driver’s capacity to avoid a collision ceased to exist because repetitive stimuli experienced on a straight flat featureless motorways could induce a trance like state.

Didn’t amount to automatism

Question 12

What case provides the definition of mental involuntariness?

Answer 12

Watmore v Jenkins (1962)

• Automatism is defined as a condition whereby the movements of a person’s body or limbs are involuntary

Question 13

How does Lord Denning define mental involuntariness

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)

Answer 13

an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing (mental involuntariness)

Question 14

What is recklessness

Answer 14

Doing or omitting to do something which could reasonably be foreseen to be likely to bring about such result

Question 15

What must a defendant do to prove automatism

Answer 15

• Act committed had no intention or was not reckless

The additional condition that must be met in the defence of non-insane automatism is that the accused was not reckless into this state (like self-intoxication)

Question 16

R v Bailey (1983) 2 All ER 503

Important case

Answer 16

Facts: D us a diabetic and required to take insulin to control his condition. Defence during trial was that he had no intention of harming the victim and he was purely acting in a state of automatism cause by hypoglycemia (when blood sugar is very low)

Held: Judge felt the automatism resulting from intoxication as a result of involuntary ingestion of alcohol or dangerous drugs, in this case it was someone who failed to take sufficient food after insulin to advert hypoclycaemia. It was no defence to crimes of basic intent as such person should reaslise the foreseeable risk (but good defence for specific intent)

Judge stated that if the D ran the risk of such a failure which could lead to aggressive, unpredictable and uncontrollable conduct and he nevertheless deliberately runs the risk or otherwise disregards it, amounts to recklessness

• But if D did not know the risk then it would be a good defence

Question 17

What are the 5 exceptions to automatism

Answer 17

1. Ordinary stress and depression - Rabey v The Queen
2. Falling asleep at the wheel - Kay v Butterworth
3. Pre-menstrual tension
4. Reflex - Ryan v The Queen
5. If physical movement is voluntary (even though it is unintentionally misdirected, concious)

Question 18

What are the differences between insanity and automatism

Answer 18

Isane automatism

• Internal cause of factors - one of the elements in establishing insanity is “disease of the mind”
• Defence for all crimes (negates mens rea)
• Different elements
• BOP is on defendant
• Verdict - Not guilty by reason of insanity
• Outcome - admitted to mental assylum
• Must have 2 or more evidence from medical practitioners

Non-insane automatism

• External cause of factor
• Defence to all crimes - negates mens rea (but for policy reasons only)
• Different elements
• Legal burden on prosection
• Outcome - fully aquitted

Question 19

Which defence is hyperglycaemia

Answer 19

• High blood sugar
• Insanity - internal factor (incontrollable)

Question 20

Which defence is hypoglycaemia

Answer 20

• Low blood sugar
• Automatism - External factor (controllable- caused due to not talking insulin/falining to take suffiecient food)