Denial of an Offence II

Automatism

1) The defendant must have total loss of control 2) Caused by an external factor 3) The defendant must not be at fault

Prior fault

1) Defendant must have done the AR in a state of automatism 2) must have stemmed from previous blameworthiness 3) The offence must have been one of basic offence

R v Quick

• Diabetes is an internal factor, but insulin is an external factor

R v Bailey

• Defendant did not take food after insulin injection

• Caused him to become aggrresive

• Held: Self induced automatism can be a defense provided that the defendant was not ‘reckless'’

• No defence if D recognises the risk and then takes it anyway

Bratty v AG for NI

• Automatism: Unconscious and involuntary action

• Where the muscles act without the control of the mind

R v Coney

• The defendant believed that he was in a videogame

Held:
This was not a state of automatism, irrational and erratic voluntary actions are still voluntary

Broom v Perkins

• Defendant steered into the hard shoulder while in a trance

Held:

• Subconscious was still controlling D’s actions, thus not a state of automatism

R v Clarke

• Absent mindedness caused by depression does not satisfy insanity - does not cause a defect in reason

Not guilty by reason of insanity

• Special verdict, can result in hospital order, supervision order or complete acquittal

• Can be appealed by the defendant

R v Sullivan

• Incorporated insanity into ECL

• 1) D must suffer from a disease of the mind

• 2) Which causes a defect in reasoning

• 3) Lack of responsibility either because D does not know the nature and quality of their actions,or cannot appreciate its wrongfulness

R v Burgess

Sleepwalking satisfies the conditions for insanity

Kempf

• Mind is understood in the ordinary sense, the condition of the brain is irrelevant

R v T

• The defendant committed theft after being raped

• D argued that she was insane

• Held:

• The cause was external - but, potentially automatism

R v Keal

• The defendant suffered from delusions

• Appeared to apologise to his victims during the attacks

• Held:

• D must either be unable to understand the nature/quality of his conduct or be unable to appreciate its wrongfulness - that conduct was both legally and morally wrong