A level Law: 3.16 Defences: Automatism
Automatism
Two Types of Automatism
• Insane Automatism, where the cause of the automatism is a disease of the mind, an internal one within the M’Naughten Rules. In such a case the defence is insanity and the verdict not guilty by
reason of insanity.
• Non-Insane Automatism, where the cause is an external one. Where such a defence succeeds, it is a complete defence and the defendant is not guilty.
Non-insane automatism: has to be caused by an EXTERNAL factor over which the defendant has no control.
Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963)
“an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act
done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking”
Some external factors that could be covered by this definition include sneezing, hypnotism, and the unknown effects of a drug or a blow to the head. In the case of Hill v Baxter (1958), a
plea of automatism was successful where the defendant had been attacked by a swarm of bees whilst driving.
It has also been the case that exceptional stress can amount to automatism. This was illustrated in the case of R v T (1990), where the defendant stabbed the victim whilst suffering from
severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Although the judge allowed the defence, the jury were not convinced and convicted the defendant.
However, this defence has been known to have rather harsh application on times:
CASE: Broome v Perkins (1987) – in this case, the defendant was in a hyperglycaemic state and drove home from work erratically, causing significant damage to his car. He could remember
nothing about the journey, but the court held that because it was a familiar journey, someone in his state should have been able to get home safely, because there was evidence that
some of his actions could have been voluntarily controlled. Therefore, the defence of automatism was not available.
In order for this defence to be successfully used, it must first of all be distinguished whether the crime in question is one of specific intent or basic intent. If the defence is proved, then it
is a complete defence and the defendant will be free to go.
BASIC INTENT CRIMES
SPECIFIC INTENT
CRIMES
COMPLETE DEFENCE
SELF-INDUCED
AUTOMATISM
NON SELF-INDUCED
AUTOMATISM
Subject to the
exceptions laid out
in R v Bailey (1983)
COMPLETE
DEFENCE
Key Terms
Specific Intent – where the mens rea for a crime is one of intention.
Examples include murder and s18 Offences Against the Person Act 1861
which is grievous bodily harm with intent, and for which automatism will be a
complete defence.
Basic Intent – where the mens rea for a crime is recklessness or negligence,
or a crime of strict liability. Examples include all offences under the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861, with the exception of s18, and for which
automatism will be a complete defence provided it was not self-induced.
