Automatism

Automatism Regarding AR

Principle

D’s conduct is involuntary if caused by a state of automatism.

General principle: In order to be liable - D’s conduct must be voluntary (Hill v Baxter)

Automatism is a complete defence to ALL offences

Automatism

Definition (AO1)

“A complete destruction of all voluntary Control” - Learn word for word

Refers to a state of unconsciousness so either:

• Conscious but uncontrolled - an act done by the muscles without control of the mind (spasm/reflex etc.)

  OR

• Impaired Consciousness - An act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing (Conduct during concussion)

COMMON LAW DEFENCE

Automatism

Case (AO3)

(Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland)

Automatism - BOP

Rule (AO1)

BOP is on D to:

• Prove automatism on balance of probabilities

(Will usually require medical evidence)

Automatism - Outcome if successful

Rule (AO1)

Full Acquittal

Automatism Requirements

Definition (AO1)

1. Total loss of Voluntary Control

2. Involuntary Conduct Caused by External Factor

3. Not self-induced

Total loss of Voluntary Control

Definition (AO1)

Must be complete destruction of voluntary control for defence to succeed.

If D retains partial / impaired control over actions then Defence is not available

Total loss of Voluntary Control

Case (AO3)

(A-G’s Reference No 2 of 1992)

D was driving in a trance. Defence unsuccessful as still moving the car so retained ‘some control’.

(Broome v Perkins)

Evidence that D retained sporadic control over actions while driving. Defence not available.

Involuntary Conduct Caused by External Factor

Definition (AO1)

Must not be of an internal factor as that would instead be insanity.

E.g. Too much insulin is automatism (R v Quick) but too little is insanity (R v Hennessey)

Involuntary Conduct Caused by External Factor

Case (AO3)

(R v Quick)

D took too much insulin and forgot to eat.

Too much insulin = An external factor and results in automatism

Involuntary Conduct Caused by External Factor - PTSD

Case (AO3)

(R v T)

D was raped and was suffering from PTSD. Charged with robbery and ABH. Seen that the rape was the external factor

Self-Induced Automatism

Rule (AO1)

• Where D is in some way responsible for becoming automaton e.g:

• By drugs / alcohol - then subject to principles of intox.

• Or some other reason

If not reckless (i.e. didn’t see a risk of automotive state) then defence works for both basic & specific intent offences.

Self-Induced Automatism - Alcohol / Drugs

Case (AO3)

(R v Hardie)

Self-Induced Automatism - Some other reason

Case (AO3)

(R v Bailey)

D failed to eat after taking insulin causing hypoglycaemia. D found guilty as he was seen to be reckless and so the automatism was self-induced