AUTOMATISM, INSANITY & INTOXICATION

Automatism

Involuntary conduct produced by an external cause.

Insanity

Involuntary conduct caused by an internal cause.

Intoxication

Involuntary conduct produced by the ingestion of drink or drugs.

Defendant must suffer from a complete loss of voluntary control.

Elements of a successful plea of automatism (1)

AG’s Ref No.2 [1992]

A case where the driver claimed to 'black out' and lost control, but evidence proved partial awareness.

McGhee [2013]

A case where CCTV footage demonstrated the defendant's conduct was voluntary.

External factors

Causes that can justify reliance on automatism, such as a serious sexual offence leading to PTSD.

Hill v Baxter [1958]

A case illustrating what constitutes external factors causing loss of control.

R v Hennessy [1989]

Diabetes case where a hypoglycemic episode must rely on insanity.

Self-induced automatism

When the defendant is aware or reckless that their actions will bring on an automated state.

R v Bailey [1983]

A diabetic case where the hypoglycemic episode was deemed external due to not eating.

Voluntary intoxication can be a defense to specific intent crimes but not basic intent crimes.

Legality of intoxication as a defense

DPP v Majewski [1977]

If one is intoxicated to the point of lacking mens rea, it results in recklessness.

R v Heard [2007]

Clarifies the distinction between basic and specific intent offences regarding mens rea.

R v Lipman [1970]

In a specific intent case, a defendant on LSD could not form mens rea for murder.

The Dutch-courage rule

In intoxication, drinking to gain courage does not negate pre-formed mens rea.

R v Kingston [1995]

Established that a drunken intent remains valid for criminal liability.