Automatism (Non-insane automatism)

Automatism (Non-insane automatism)

1. Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) - "An act done by the muscles without any control of 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 whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleep-walking."

   • This also covers Insanity

2. Cause must be an external factor, else automatism isn't available (but insanity may be)

   • Eg: a blow to the head, an attack by a swarm of bees, sneezing, hypnotism, the effect of a drug
     • Hill v Baxter (1958) - D drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car. As he remembered nothing, he was acquitted by the magistrates. However, prosecution appealed, and due to lack of evidence to support the defence, was convicted.
     • Exceptional stress can be an external factor which may cause automatism.
       • T (1990) - D was raped. Three days later she took part in a robbery and an assault. She claimed to be suffering from PTSD because of the rape and had acted in a dream-like state. Trial judge allowed the defence, but D was convicted.
   • Reduced or partial control of one's actions is not sufficient to constitute non-insane automatism.
     • AG's reference (No 2 of 1992) (1993) - D was a lorry driver, who after driving for several hours, drove along the hard shoulder of a motorway and hit a broken-down car which was stationary, killing two people. He said he was "driving without awareness" which put him into a trance like state. However, because this was didn't cause a total loss of control, automatism wasn't available as a defence.

3. Self-induced automatism

   • Bailey (1983) - D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin to control his diabetes. He became aggressive and hit someone with an iron bar. D was convicted because of the lack of evidence to support the defence, but it would have been available in this situation.
   • If the offence is one of specific intent, defence may be available. This is because the D lacks the required mens rea.
   • If the offence is a basic intent offence... The law set out in Bailey (1983) states
     • If the defendant has been reckless in getting into a state of automatism, self-induced automatism cannot be a defence (as recklessness is sufficient for the mens rea)
     • where the self-induced automatic state is caused through drink or illegal drugs or other intoxicating substances, the D cannot use the defence of automatism.
       • Coley (2013) - 17 year old who used cannabis and attacked his neighbours with a knife. No recollection. Charged with attempted murder.
     • Where the D does not know that his actions are likely to lead to a self-induced automatic state in which he may commit an offence, he has not been reckless and can use the defence of automatism.
       • Hardie (1984) - D was depressed. He took valium which were prescribed to his former gf, to calm down. He then set fire to a wardrobe, saying he did not know what he was doing because of the valium. On appeal, his conviction was quashed, as the D thought the drug would calm him down. so he had not been reckless. So the defence should have been available.

4. Comments on the law on automatism

   • The defences of non-insane and insane automatism are so closely linked, yet can have such different outcomes on the cases.
   • The law considers people who clearly aren't insane to most people to be classed as insane, yet in some circumstances, due to subtle factors such as the taking of insulin, the verdicts can vary greatly.
     • Quick/Hennessy
   • Proposals to change the definition of the law on non-insane automatism, so it includes cases such as Sullivan and Burgess.
     • Although some ague that the special verdict allows a judge to order medical treatment for those found not guilty by reason of insanity - Might stop more recurrences of those in an automotive state if helped?