Automatism - Denials of Offences

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland provides the definition for automatism, what is it?

This means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind

What are the four elements for automatism?

1. complete loss of voluntary control

2. caused by external factors

3. NOT internal causes

4. Not self-induced

AG’s references (1992) on complete loss of voluntary control, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D charged with causing death by reckless driving. He drove whilst asleep, and his side argued that it was a state of automatism.

Outcome → Court disagreed, stating automatism requires ‘TOTAL destruction of voluntary control on defendant’s part.’ In this case, D responded to the stimuli, so it wasn’t automatism

• Impaired, reduced control is not automatism

Broome v Perkins on complete loss of voluntary control, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D was charged with driving without attention. D had no recollection of the journey, till his wife gave him a mars bar back home.

Outcome → D was using his limbs to stir around and move the car, therefore it is NOT automatism

R v McGhee on complete loss of voluntary control, what is the outcome?

Automatism requires wholly involuntary action

R v T on automatism being caused by an external factor, what is the context and outcome?

Context → T was charged with robbery. T was passive as to what was happening during the robbery and armed with a stanley knife. She had injuries consistent with rape and was suffering due to it. She argued she had a loss of capacity because of PTSD.

Outcome → PTSD was amounted to automatism, therefore external

Rabey v The Queen on automatism being caused by an external factor, what is the context and outcome?

Context → D was charged with GBH for hitting V with a rock after she didn’t have feelings for him and D said he felt strange. Psychiastrict stated D was in a dissociative state due to emotional shock.

Outcome → Court outlined physical blows will do for automatism, but not psychological or internal failings.

R v Bailey on automatism not being self-induced, what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → D was diabetic, struck V over the head. D had not ate food after taking insulin.

Outcome → It is not common knowledge that even to diabetics, the consequences of not taking food, but there is no evidence that this was known to D.

Importance → If you bring about your automate state, you cannot obtain automatism plea

R v Hardie on automatism not being self-induced, what is the context, outcome and importance?

Context → D took valium, started a fire in the flat. He claimed he had no mens rea.

Outcome → Court stated if someone takes a drug not known to create aggression or unpredictability and D didn’t know, and the general public didn’t, then they are eligible for automatism.