automatism structure

intro

D may have the defence of automatism.

1. D not in control and therefore involuntary act

Firstly, it must be proved that defendant is not in control and therefore there is an involuntary act. In Bratty Lord Denning defined automatism as: 'an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind'. [LINK TO SCENARIO - HOW DOES D ACT W/O CONTROL OVER BODY AND IS IT INVOLUNTARY].

2. LOC due to external factor/cause

Next it must be proved that the loss of control was due to an external factor/cause. In Quick the external factor was the taking of insulin by a diabetic defendant. [STATE WHAT THE EXTERNAL FACTOR MAY BE].

3. total LOVC (V for voluntary)

Lastly, it must be proved that there was a total loss of voluntary control. In Broome v Perkins/AG's reference No 2 (1992], D had shown at least partial control over his driving so the defence was not available. [LINK TO SCENARIO - HOW D DID/DIDNT HAVE LOVC].

self-induced if relly

Where the self-induced automatic state is caused by the external factor of intoxication (e.g. alcohol, illegal drugs), D cannot use the defence of automatism (Lipman). If self-induced automatism is not caused by alcohol or illegal drugs then the defence of automatism may be available but only for specific intent crimes, not for crimes of basic intent where D was reckless (Bailey). [IF D INTOX NO DEFENCE, IF NAWT THEN IF OG OFFENCE HAS RECKLESNESS ARGUE DEFENCE NOT AVALIABLE].

conclusion

If all the elements have been satisfied for automatism, it can lead to D being acquitted.