Criminal Defence: Automatism

What was Automatism defined as, and by who in what case?

Lord Denning defined Automatism as ‘An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, reflex action or convulsion’ in Bratty v AG

What two steps must be proven for the defence of automatism to be successful?

1. A completely involuntary action

2. Caused by an external factor

1. Completely Involuntary

-The automatism must have stopped the D forming the mens rea for the offence

T: D robbed a store with PTSD from rape. Since she was in a dreamlike state she didn’t form the necessary mens rea so the defence succeeded.

-There is no defence if there is not a complete loss of control

Watmore v Jenkins: D dropped in and out of conciousness whilst driving. Since he did not completely lose control the defence failed.

Woolley: D had a sneezing fit whilst driving and caused a domino pile-on. Since it was involuntary and he didn’t have the mens rea the defence succeeded.

2. Caused by an external factor

This is used to distinguish whether the defence should be insanity or automatism.

Quick: D took insulin but ate very little afterwards. The cause of the fit was external so the defence was automatism.

Falconer: D shot her husband but didn’t remember anything. She had been sexually assaulted by him and recently found out that he had abused her children aswell. HELD: Defence succeeded as it was an extreme external cause.

Lowe: D murdered his father whilst sleepwalking. HELD: The defence of automatism failed and he was given insanity instead

What hypothetical scenario did the case of Hill v Baxter introduce?

A hypothetical swarm of bees: they are external and uncontrollable so the D shouldn’t be liable for actions caused by them. This was outlined in the obiter dicta.

What is self induced automatism?

When the D takes a substance that causes their automatic state. Whether the defence succeeds depends on the type of offence.

Specific intent (Murder, s.18):

Defence can succeed if it prevented the D from forming the mens rea.

Basic intent:

If the D was unaware that his actions would lead to an automatic state (e.g. soporific drugs - Hardie) the defence may succeed.

If the automatic state is caused by illegal drugs the defence will fail as it is a reckless course of conduct. Majewski