Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Automatism as a Legal Defence: Types, Cases, and Distinctions, Study notes of Law

The concept of automatism as a legal defence in english law, focusing on its two types: insane automatism and non-insane automatism. Relevant cases, such as bratty v attorney-general for northern ireland and r v t, and the distinction between specific intent and basic intent crimes. It also covers self-induced automatism and the key case of r v bailey (1983).

What you will learn

  • What are the two types of automatism in English law?
  • What are the conditions for a successful defence of automatism in a basic intent crime?
  • What is the difference between specific intent and basic intent crimes in relation to the automatism defence?

Typology: Study notes

2021/2022

Uploaded on 09/12/2022

bradpitt
bradpitt 🇬🇧

4.3

(10)

224 documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
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.
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Automatism as a Legal Defence: Types, Cases, and Distinctions and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

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.

SPECIFIC INTENT^ BASIC INTENT CRIMES

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.

A level Law: 3.16 Defences: Automatism

Self-Induced Automatism

Where a person knowingly becomes an automaton, in other words he knows that his actions are likely to bring about an automatic state and he commits a basic intent offence, the rules are slightly different. The defence will always be available for specific intent crimes because it would be unfair to convict a defendant who does not have the required mens rea for an offence. The rules for self-induced automatism, where a basic intent crime is committed, were laid down in R v Bailey (1983). This case outlined that automatism cannot be a defence, where: a) The defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton; or b) Where the automatism has been caused by illegal drink or drugs.

Key Case:

R v Bailey (1983) – the defendant was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin. He became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar. The court held that the defence of automatism was not available because the defendant was reckless in becoming an automaton. However, the judge in the case did stipulate that the defence of automatism CAN BE USED where: c) The defendant does not know that his actions are likely to result in an automatic state. This is because it cannot be said that the defendant has been reckless in becoming an automaton. CASE: R v Hardie (1994) – the defendant was depressed because of a relationship split, and took some Valium that had been prescribed for his former girlfriend. She encouraged him to take them to calm him down, but unknown to him they had the opposite effect and he set fire to a wardrobe. The judge allowed the defence of automatism because he had not been reckless in getting into that state.