Criminal | Defences
Automatism: Criteria
Revision Note | A Level
Download
bitsoflaw.orgbits of law
Introduction
- automatism can be a defence in relation to all offences
- two elements required: act is involuntary and caused by an external factor
- if D successfully argues automatism he is found not liable and acquitted
Involuntary act
- D must have acted involuntarily
- involuntary defined as mind not controlling limbs in a purposeful way
Bratty (1963)
- D strangled V in his car
- evidence showed D suffered a psychomotor epileptic seizure at time of the killing, D claimed that
.. a blackness came over him..
- Lord Denning:
..No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context… means an act which is 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 such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking…
- partial control can undermine automatism defence
Attorney General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992)
- D, an HGV driver, killed Vs, when he drove on to motorway hard shoulder
- D’s defence was
driving without awareness
, a trance like state induced by repetitive stimuli experienced on long journeys - trial judge left defence of automatism available to jury, D acquitted
- on appeal decided as a matter of law if D is partly in control automatism could not be considered
External factor
- must be caused by an external factor not internal (such as disease)
Quick (1973)
- D, a nurse, assaulted V, a paraplegic patient, V sustained injuries including black eyes, broken nose and bruising, evidence confirmed injuries could not be self inflicted
- D was a diabetic, he had taken his insulin but not eaten enough, D suffering from hypoglycaemia, caused by too much insulin and leads to mental instability
- Court of Appeal found hypoglycaemia did not come within definition of insanity as caused by drug insulin, D could rely on automatism and was entitled to be acquitted
- general principle that internal factors lead to insanity and external factors to automatism
Hennessey (1989)
- D was driving a stolen car while disqualified
- D, was diabetic and not taken his insulin for four days, D argued he was suffering from hyperglycaemia, which can lead to unconscious actions
- court found hyperglycaemia was caused by an internal factor, diabetes, so automatism not available (but insanity was)