AUTOMATISM, INSANITY & INTOXICATION  

Basic definitions

-Automatism is involuntary conduct produced by an external cause

A key difference between automatism and insanity is whether the loss of control came from internal or external factors

-Insanity is involuntary conduct caused by an internal cause

Special verdict

Not guilty by insanity

The only sentence once available was a hospital order, however the case law has been changed.

Similar to dimishied responsibility, there is a reverse burden. This means the burden of proof is on the defense not prosecution.

Requires the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that they are insane

-Intoxication is involuntary conduct produced by the ingestion of drink or drugs

Preliminary and procedural points on automatism, insanity and intoxication

-The effect of pleading the three defences, if successful

-Burdens and standards of proof

A.     Automatism

Elements of a successful plea

1.     D must suffer from a complete loss of voluntary control

-        AG’s Ref No.2 [1992]

Lorry goes down the hard shoulder, collies with car & kills two people. Driver claimed he “blacked out” and lost control.

Evidence suggests there was partial awareness in terms of steering, therefore he couldn’t rely on automatism.

-        McGhee [2013] – CCTV footage demonstrated that D’s conduct was voluntary.

Altercation in off license, D returned with a knife while covering his face & stabbed one of the workers.

He cannot recall the events but the incident was captured on cctv. His movements suggest he was in control.

If someone’s control is partially impaired, it is not sufficient to claim automatism.

2. The lack of control/involuntary conduct must be caused

by an external factor

Examples of external and internal causes

R v T [1990]

External factors- rely on automatism

She was subject to a serious sexual offence and participated in a robbery 3 days later.

Claimed she had little to no recollection of what happened around the time. As a result of the sexual offence, she has developed PTSD.

Internal factors are typically caused by the body or mind, even though PTSD is classified as a mental condition, this was classified as an external factor as it was formed because of the sexual offence.

Hill v Baxter [1958]

External factors- rely on automatism

D blacked out & reckless driving.

Judge mentioned what an external factor is classified as:

If you drive with your window open and a swarm of bees fly in and you lose control of the car or if you have a body spasm due to an explosion happening or something falling on  your head.

R v Hennessy [1989]

Diabetes: people who forget to take their insulin and have a hypoglycemic episode must rely on insanity

[see below]

R v Burgess [1991]
sleepwalking: those who sleepwalk must rely on insanity
[see below]

3. D Must not be at fault in causing his condition

The rules on self-induced automatism

Self induced automatism is where D is aware, or reckless, that his actions will bring on an automatic state

R v Bailey [1983]

Diabetic person took their insulin but has not eaten.

The hypoglycemic episode was caused by an external factor which was brought on by not eating.

If you are charged with basic intent offence, you cannot rely on the defense of automatism if it is brought on by yourself because you have been reckless.

The rule for specific intent crimes
A crime of specific intent is one where the definition of the crime requires intention only as the mens rea, in respect of at least one element of the actus reus

The rule for basic intent crimes
A crime of basic intent is a crime where the definition of the offence requires intention or some lesser state of mind (usually recklessness) in respect of at least one element of the actus reus

For basic intent crimes, self-induced automatism can never be a defence.

Cases involving defendants suffering from diabetes

The law has been criticized for how it distinguished between insanity and automatism in diabetes cases and how that created in justice and irregularities in law.

Diabetics can suffer from two types of episode:

-Hyperglycaemia =excessive blood sugar caused by diabetes

-Hypoglycaemia=too little blood sugar caused by insulin

-        R v Quick [1973]

HYPOglycemic episode

Insulin was taken but not eaten (automatism)

-        R v Hennessy [1989]

Failed to inject their insulin which caused the HYPOglycemic episode (insanity)

2.     Insanity (aka insane automatism)

Examples of internal causes of an automatic state

-Hyperglycaemia R v Hennessy

-Sleepwalking R v Burgess [1991]

-Arterioscerosis R v Kemp [1957]

Condition where the walls of the heart thicken and harden, restricting the blolodflow to the brain.

Described as a good character, but attacked his wife with a hammer as a result of the restriction of bloodflow. The attack had no motive.

-Epilepsy R v Sullivan [1984]

Epileptic fit is seen as an internal factor.

Elements of a successful plea of insanity

The Mcnaghten rules

-        R v Mcnaghten [1843]

D tried to kill the prime minister but killed the secretary. Was suffering from severe delusions.

The problem is that these rules are outdated. The medical language and understanding has moved on.

Even though this was drafted by lawyers, in current day we still rely on medical professionals being called up to the stand by the defence to prove insanity.

There is a conflict between the legal and medical definitions.

A)    D must be labouring under a defect of reason

Their powers of reason must be impaired even if this is only temporarily

R v Sullivan

Epileptic fit in which they violently kick out. This temporary condition acts as a defect of reason as they do not have the awareness of what they are doing.

R v Clarke

Just confused or absent minded

It does not conclude to defect of reason.

Failure to use your powers of reason is not sufficient.

B)    The defect of reason must be caused by a disease of the mind

Identify relevant internal factors

R v Kemp [1957]

Not a disease of the mind, but rather of the heart that affects the brain and therefore behaviour. There is a conflict between the medical and legal broad definition.

C [2013] – temporary effects of voluntary intoxication are incapable of amounting to a disease of the mind.

C)     D did not know the nature and quality of his actions or did not know that what he was doing was legally wrong

There is a requirement on the defence to provide medical expert evidence before or during the trial. Without medical evidence, it may be difficult to be 100% sure.

R v Sullivan

Kicked someone in the head during an epile[tic fit.

Did not know the nature and quality of act during the fit

R v Windle [1952]

He gave his wife 100 aspirins to “put her out of her misery”.

Upon his arrest he said, “I suppose they will hang me for this”.

This comment about the consequences indicates he was aware his actions were legally wrong when the defence of insanity was attempted.

Some criticisms of the law on insanity and automatism

A)    The internal/external dichotomy

B)     Mcnaghten rules are unscientific

C)     Burden of proof for insanity and Art 6 ECHR

3.     Intoxication

A general rule

Harris [2013] – Intoxication (either alcohol or drugs) should only apply as a defence where D was actually intoxicated at the time of the offence, not where he has another condition brought on by heavy drinking in the past.

Is the defendant intoxication voluntary, or involuntary?

-        R v Hardie [1984]
non dangerous drugs (prescription): rules on INvoluntry intoxication will apply as long as you have not taken the drug recklessly

D was upset about the end of a relationship and took Valium (sedative). He set fire to her wardrobe. He has voluntary taken the drugs but due to taking them non recklessly (not too many, not with alcohol) the rules of involuntary intoxication applied.

-        R v Allen [1988]

Defendant made his own wife without realizing how strong the wife was and committed a number of sexual offences after drinking.

Wanted to argue he was involuntary intoxicated.

Held: being unaware of the strength of the alcohol is not a defence

Is the offence a specific or basic intent crime?

A crime of specific intent is one where the definition of the crime requires intention only as the mens rea, in respect of at least one element of the actus reus.

A crime of basic intent is a crime where the definition of the offence requires intention or some lesser state of mind (usually recklessness) in respect of at least one element of the actus reus.

-Voluntary intoxication can be a defence to crimes of specific intent, but never to crimes of basic intent

-Involuntary intoxication can be a defence to any crime  (e.g. Spiked drink)

-        DPP v Majewski [1977]

Prior fault with automatism

If you have become so intoxicated that you are unable to form the necessary mens rea, you have been reckless in that state.

Basic intent crime + voluntary intoxication = satisfied recklessness element

-        R v Heard [2007]

Difference between basic and specific intent offences are if its an intentional only mens rea it’s a specific offence. If it has recklessness in it, it is basic.

The problem with this definition for sexual offences is that for offences such as sexual assault, it only requires the basic mens rea of sexual touching.

It would be a specific intent offence which means the defendant would be able to rely on involuntary intoxication as a defence. This creates a problem in the law because most sexual offences happen when people have been voluntarily intoxicated.

-        R v Lipman [1970]

Someone charged with a specific intent offence with voluntary intoxication that can be raised as a defence. If they are successful In proving they were unable to form a mens rea, it does NOT mean they will walk away from court un-sentenced.

Lipman was charged with murder. He took LSD and was hallucinating that he was being attacked by serpents coming from the center of the earth while in bed with his girlfriend.

He stuffs the duvet down his girlfriends throat.

Voluntry taken the LSD

Murder is a specific intent offence

He was not able to form the mens reas so he was not charged with murder.

Basic intent homicide offence: Lawful act manslaughter (S20 instead of S18 CJIA)

If intoxication can be raised does the defendant and a ‘drunk intent’?

-        R v Kingston [1995]

A drunken intent is sufficient.

 The defendant was set up, his drink was spiked, and a camera was placed in a room with him and a young boy.

Tried to argue the defence of intoxication.

The dutch- courage rule

R v Gallagher [1963]
If you drink to give yourself the courage to commit a criminal offence, it still satisfies the intent no matter how drunk you get.

Violent psychopath that was violent to his wife who he blamed for ending up in a secure hospital.

He took a knife and a bottle of whiskey and drank to give himself the courage to kill his wife. He knows that once he is intoxicated he is more violent.

Held: he already formed the necessary mens rea