Automatism

Automatism

1. What is this defence?

   • A general defence, which if successful will result in an acquittal. If def raised the pros must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the D's actions were voluntary and medical evidence will be required.
   • This is a plea that D's actions were carried out involuntarily and thus the AR is not satisfied. Or there is a lack of MR as the D was not conscious of what he was doing.
     • Lord Denning in 'Bratty' described it as 'an act which is 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 whilst suffering from a concussion'.
       • So the accused's mind must not be controlling his limbs.
     • As mental capacity is assumed D will have to place medical evidence before the court to support this plea.
   • There must be a 'complete destruction of voluntary control', as established in 'Watmore & Jenkins; 'Isitt'.
     • Partial loss of self control is insufficient (AG's Ref (No.2 of 1992)). If D is still able to appreciate what he is doing and operate his body to a degree then the def is not satisfied (Hill v Baxter).
   • The loss of control must be due to an external factor - if internal the appropriate def will be insanity.
     • E.g. Severe blows to the head, hypnotism, administration of an anaesthetic, hypoglycaemia, swarm of bees, dissociative state due to an extraordinary event, sneezing...etc.
   • The def cannot be relied upon if the automatism is self induced.
     • E.g. by drinking or taking drugs as in Lipman.
       • Where D is aware of the risk of automatism the def will fail - Bailey.
   • Diabetes & Defences
     • If the D fails to eat after taking insulin he can suffer from hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) which can make them confused, aggressive and uncoordinated. This could result in automatism (Quick).
     • If the D fails to take his insulin in the first place he will suffer from hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) the defence will fail (Hennesy).

2. Bratty - the presiding case for automatism.

   • Appellant strangled and killed a young woman with a stocking. Suffered from psychmotor epilepsy.
   • Established insanity as internal - likened to Sullivan.
   • Lord Denning - 'an act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion'.

3. Hill v Baxter

   • Dangerous driver who claimed to have been suffering from an unknon illness and was unconscious at the time.
     • There was some credible evidence, but he had drove a substantial distance, thus it was not a complete destruction.
   • Lord Goddard - 'the burden of proof is on the Pros. to show that the act was a voluntary one.' He resurrected the now famous and hypothetical 'swarm of bees'.

4. AGs Ref (No.2 of 1992)

   • Drove a lorry for 6hrs and hit a stationary vehicle killing 2 people. Claimed automatism as he was 'driving without awareness', repetitive visual stimulus.
     • Professor Brown - D had some control of the larry as he had to steer and was partially aware of what was going on.
   • Automatism occurs when there is a total loss of VC. Impaired or reduced control is not sufficient.

5. Watmore v Jenkins

   • Reckless driving - a total loss of control is required.
     • There must be a 'complete destruction of voluntary control' for the defence to suceed.

6. Quick

   • D, a nurse, assaulted a patient. He was diabetic who had taken insulin but not eaten sufficiently adding to him drinking whiskey and rum. Argued he couldn't remember incident.
   • D was suffering from automatism, which is a mental abnormality caused by an external factor.

7. R v T

   • D took part in a robery, later couldn't remember much. She had been raped a few days prior.
     • A psychiartrist disagnosed PTSD, suggest she had acted without a conscious mind.
     • Judge said there was a question of sane automatism to go to the jury - 'An appalling effect on a young woman'.

8. Whooley

   • D, lory driver, was travelling in slow moving traffic, suffered a sneezing fit, losing control of vehicle - caused a domino effect involving 7 cars.
   • Court held that a sneezing attack could amount to an IV act for the purposes of the defence of non-insane automatism.

9. Bailey

   • D, diabetic, visited ex-girlfriend and her new partner. Took insulin and drank some sugar water, but he had nothing to eat. Assaulted the partner with an iron bar. Claimed he acted whilst in a hypoglycaemic state.
   • A person aware of the risks of taking drink and drugs cannot rely on the defence. D had deliberately gone to V's house.