Automatism Authors Insight This particular chapter deals with a Defendant (D) who claims his act is involuntary

or automatic, therefore negating his liability to a crime (INVOLUNTARY ACT = NO ACTUS REUS = NO CRIME). In essence this chapter is a DEFENSE and the D is rebutting the AR (the criminal act). This chapter is relatively easy and students should be advised to pay attention to this defense in their problem question. Case summary will be provided for a select few cases and can be seen at the end of this chapter. A.

Definition of Automatism Watmore v Jenkins and Broome v Perkins whereby the movement of a persons limbs are involuntary. Watmore v Jenkins [1962] 2 QB 572 D drove dangerously while suffering from hypoglycemia. D gradually lost consciousness over the course of a five-mile drive. Held: Winn J said a state of automatism is no more than a modern catchphrase, which the courts have not accepted as connoting any wider or looser concept than involuntary movement of the body or limbs. Only when the driver is not really driving at all is the defense of automatism available to him. Broome v Perkins [1987] Crim LR 271 D a diabetic was charged with driving without due care and attention. He had suffered a partial loss of consciousness, having taken insulin. His condition was such that his mind was dissociated from the mental processes required to drive a car responsibly. Held: It was not possible for D to rely on automatism since D consciousness and control were seriously impaired rather than absent. 2. Lord Denning in Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland means an act which is done without any control from the mind, such as spasm, a reflex action or a 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. Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386 D strangled a girl. He gave evidence that a blackness came over him and he did not realize what he had done. There was evidence that he might have been suffering from epilepsy. Lord Denning : Automatism is an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done while suffering from concussion or whilst sleep walking.

B.

The degree of involuntariness It isnt enough that the act was involuntary. It must be shown that there was a complete destruction of voluntary control. Watmore v Jenkins; Broome v Perkins; AGs Reference No.2 of 1992 A-G Ref (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 3 WLR 982 D was a lorry driver who, after driving for several hours, drove along the hard shoulder of a motorway for about half a mile and hit a broken down car. Key law: Reduced or partial awareness is not enough for the defense of automatism.

C.

The State should not be self induced An additional condition is that the defence of non-insanse automatism can only succeed provided the D had not been reckless in getting into the state of automatism. Reckless means doing or omitting to do something which can be reasonably foreseen to bring about the state of automatism. R v Bailey R v Bailey [1983] EWCA Crim 2 D was a diabetic who failed to eat properly after taking insulin. This caused a hypoglycemic state during which hr hit V on the head with an iron bar. The trial judge ruled that the def of automatism was not available Held : The trial judge had erred but the conviction stood as there was insufficient evidence to raise def of automatism. Key Law: Automatism, even self induced, is a def to an offence which requires the prosecution to prove specific intent. Where D Is reckless in getting into the state of self induced automatism , then he cannot rely on the def for a basic intent offence.

Self induced automatism from drugs or alcohol is a bad defense for Basic Intent Crimes (DPP V Majewski) but is a good defense for Specific Intent Crimes. The exceptions are i) Involuntarily drugged ii) Taking a soporific drug voluntarily and the effect was not reasonably foreseeable(R v Hardie) iii) Unconscious acts can be treated as likely to recur.

D.

Situations which ARE NOT Non- Insane Automatism Stress and Dissapointment in Life (Rabey v The Queen) Sleeping on the steering wheel of a vehicle (Kay v Butterworth)

Reflex action (Ryan v The Queen; R v Jarmain) The Ds prohibited act occasioned the prohibited result and he cannot claim that his acts were involuntary because the initial acts were voluntary. Pre-Menstrual Tension (R v Saudie Smith)

E. Situations which ARE Non-Insane Automatism Hypoglycaemia (Low blood sugar) (R v Quick) (R v Bingham) R v Bingham [1991] Crim LR 43 The appellant, a diabetic, was charged with theft of a can of coke and some sandwiches. At the time of the offence he was suffering from hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level due to an excess of insulin) causing him to be absent minded and lacking in full consciousness. He had 90 in his pocket at the time. The trial judge wrongly held that this gave rise to the defense of insanity. The appellant pleaded guilty and appealed the judge's ruling. Held: The appeal was allowed and the appellant's conviction was quashed. The automatism was induced by an external factor of insulin rather than the internal disease of diabetes. The correct defense therefore, was non-insane automatism.

Concussion (R v Scott) Hypnosis and anaesthetic (R v Quick) R v Quick [1973] 3 WLR 26 D, a nurse, was convicted of causing actual bodily harm to a patient. He said that he failed to eat after taking insulin for diabetes .This had caused hypoglycemia. Key law: Where there is an external cause the defense is automatism. Lawton J describes automatism as a malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect, caused by the application to the body of some external factor, such as violence , drugs , including anesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic influences.

Spasms and convulsions (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland) Trauma due to rape (R v Antoniuk)

F.

Situations which ARE Insane Automatism Arteriosclerosis (R v Kemp) R v Kemp [1957] 1 QB 399 An elderly man of good character attacked and killed his wife with a hammer. He was suffering from arteriosclerosis (hardening of the arteries) which caused him to black out due to congestion of blood in the brain.

Hyperglycaemia (R v Hennessy) R v Hennessy [1989] 1 WLR 287 D was a diabetic who needed insulin to control the condition. He was charged with taking a car and driving whilst disqualified. His defense was that because he failed to take insulin, this had caused him to suffer hyperglycemia.

Held: Trial judge ruled that this was an external factor and therefore the defense of insanity. Key law: Where the cause of involuntary behavior is internal, then it is a disease of the mind and the correct defense is insanity.

Sleep-walking (R v Burgess) R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92 D attacked a girl, with whom he had been watching a video, with a bottle and the video recorder and then put his hands round her neck. He claimed he was sleepwalking and that this should give him the def of automatism. Held: The evidence was of an internal cause and the correct def was with insanity. Key law: Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and which is prone to recur is a disease of the mind. Thus the correct def is insanity. Note: The expert medical opinion was that sleepwalking is a mental abnormality, was transmitted through hereditary and hence, though there were external triggers the episodes were due to an internal factor namely the inbuilt factor to sleepwalk.

Epilepsy/ Epileptic Fits (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland) (R v Sullivan) R v Sullivan [1984] AC 156 While D was at the home of a friend, he had an epileptic fit. In the course of the fit he attacked and injured the friend. D argued that he should be allowed the def of automatism Key law: Where D is suffering from a disease of the mind, then this can be within the defense of insanity. The disease can be one which causes a transient or intermittent impairment of reason, memory or understanding. The condition need not be permanent.

G.

Insane Automatism ( Defense of Insanity) Defined as a disease of the mind and is thus subjected to the MNaughten Rules: i) Defect of reason ii) Disease of the mind iii) Does not know the quality of the act , or , if the D knew its quality, he/she did not know it was wrong.

In R v Quick & Paddison the courts felt that the definition given in Kemp was too wide and it was capable of producing surprising results. Therefore in R v Quick the courts distinguished between internal and external factors. If the cause of Ds action was external, the Court of Appeal held that it could not be a disease of the mind (therefore its non-insane automatism)

H.

Difference between Insane Automatism and Non-Insane Automatism Non-Insane Automatism External Factor Defense for all crimes If successful = Acquitted. No AR Total Discharge Supported by medical evidence.

Insane Automatism Internal Factor Defense for all crimes If successful = not guilty by reason of insanity D will be admitted to a psychiatric hospital for treatment Allegation of Internal Factor must be supported by the evidence of 2 or more registered Medical Practitioners - Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991