Automatism defence
The automatism defense is a legal concept that can be used to argue that a person's actions were involuntary due to a state of automatism, such as sleepwalking or a seizure. If successfully argued, it can result in the acquittal of the individual, as they are not held responsible for their actions. This defense hinges on the lack of voluntary control over one's actions.
8 Key excerpts on "Automatism defence"
eBook - ePub- John Rumbold(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...5 Criminal law theory This chapter will discuss some of the wider issues surrounding medicolegal automatism. In particular, the legal and moral principles behind the exemption from criminal responsibility for acts committed during medicolegal automatism need to be examined, and whether or not there are coherent and consistent principles underpinning the law in this area. Firstly, we need to examine the jurisprudence behind the Automatism defence. Justification of the Automatism defence When the English case law is examined, it is difficult to formulate a unifying doctrine for the automatism/insanity distinction. It seems that none of the following factors alone are determinative: • External cause • Exceptional nature of causative factor • Risk of recurrence • Continuing danger • Physical illness versus psychiatric illness. The Canadian approach acknowledges explicitly that the assessment of whether or not social control measures are required involves a holistic assessment. The English courts have made no such declaration, although decisions at the court of first instance indicate that such assessments are being made e.g. the case of Brian Thomas (de Bruxelles, 2009). Automatism simpliciter and the insanity defence share several justifications for their status as excuses in criminal law (Hart, 1968). If we look at the justifications for criminal punishment, it can be seen that several of these cannot be applied to the defendant who was in a state of medicolegal automatism without any disqualifying conditions such as prior fault or involuntary intoxication. Individual deterrence cannot be justified, as he cannot be deterred. Where all of the executive functions of the brains have been disabled, the person is no longer able to weigh up his options and choose to avoid punishment for violations of the law. The works of legal philosophers Hart and Schopp are instructive on the legal concept of automatism...
eBook - ePub- Norman Baird(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...Typical examples are sleepwalking, acts done in a hypnotic trance, reflex actions and convulsions. Such states normally excuse a defendant for his conduct and its consequences on the basis that no responsibility can fairly attach to unwilled actions. However, the ‘defence’ is limited in application and does not always result in a complete acquittal. Its availability may be limited by requiring a total loss of control. In addition, the causes of the condition must be considered. If automatism is the result of an internal condition that is likely to result in recurrent ‘malfunctioning’, the defendant is legally insane and entitled only to a qualified acquittal. Or if there is prior fault on the part of the defendant either because he is voluntarily intoxicated or has ‘recklessly’ failed to take steps to prevent himself falling into a state of automatism his condition will not excuse all crimes. 1 Total Loss of Control In Attorney General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) (1993), the Court of Appeal held that automatism is only available where there was a complete destruction of voluntary control. The defendant, a lorry driver, was charged with causing death by reckless driving. He raised a defence of automatism and produced expert evidence that the repetitive visual stimuli experienced as he drove along the straight, flat, featureless motorways had induced a trance-like state. The judge allowed the defence to go before the jury and the defendant was acquitted. The prosecution appealed, successfully. The Court of Appeal held that as there had not been a total destruction of voluntary control the judge ought not to have allowed the defence of automatism to go to the jury...
eBook - ePubForensic Psychiatry
Fundamentals and Clinical Practice
- Basant Puri, Ian H. Treasaden, Basant Puri, Ian H. Treasaden(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- CRC Press(Publisher)
...From a medical point of view, any abnormality of brain function that has led to a disorder of behavior will usually contain components of both sane and insane automatism. For example, the blow to the head (external) only produces the automatism because it disrupts the functioning of the neurons in the brain (internal). It makes little sense to say that an offense committed in a confusional state following the injection of insulin is sane, while a similar state from too much insulin secreted by the pancreas is insanity. AUTOMATISM IN THE UNITED STATES Legally, automatism has been defined by U.S. courts as “a defense against criminal liability for those defendants who perform illegal conduct in a state of unconsciousness or semi-consciousness.” It may also apply to “behavior performed in a state of mental unconsciousness or dissociation without full awareness, i.e., somnambulism, fugue.” Although the automatism defense classically involves conditions such as convulsions, reflexes, and other acts that are performed without any conscious direction, the defense also applies to those who perform complex actions in a coordinated, directed fashion, but with substantially reduced awareness. Consequently, courts have recognized this defense in cases in which the defendant’s impaired consciousness was associated with epilepsy, somnambulism, concussion, or physical or emotional trauma. 5 There is a lack of general consensus on the automatism defense in the United States. Some courts have held that automatism is a variation of the general defense of excuses, interpreting the disorder as a defect of reason that prevented the defendant from knowing the nature and quality of his actions (People v. Higgins), while other courts have accepted automatism as a form of insanity (Tibbs v. Commonwealth). Still others have accepted automatism as a separate defense, specifically excluding insanity as part of the description (People v. Martin, Fulcher v. State). In Jones v...
eBook - ePub- Steven Yannoulidis(Author)
- 2016(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The final section will highlight several difficulties faced by the criminal law in respect of the correct characterization of states of automatism. Lack of volition Automatism refers to an individual’s lack of control of his or her conduct resulting in him or her acting in an unwilled fashion. 125 It is an individual’s lack of volition which gives rise to automatism. Cases that have been recognized as giving rise to a lack of voluntariness include instances of concussion caused from a blow to the head, 126 somnambulism, 127 extreme stress, 128 epilepsy 129 and certain physiological states. 130 Certain cases and commentators have suggested that it is an accused’s lack or altered state of consciousness which is the defining feature of automatism. 131 This focus on an accused’s consciousness has in turn led to calls for automatism to be subsumed, along with the defence of insanity, within a general defence of mental disorder. 132 For now I simply note this view and will return to it in Chapter 6. In both Australia and Canada, another line of authority indicates that it is the absence of volition, rather than consciousness, which is the defining feature of automatism. 133 Lord Denning, in the House of Lords decision of Bratty v A-G (Northern Ireland), 134 held that ‘automatism [means] an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion’. 135 Barwick CJ in Ryan v R 136 noting Lord Denning’s remarks in Bratty 137 approvingly, held that the term ‘automatism’ was merely a ‘convenient expression … to comprehend involuntary deeds where. the lack of concomitant or controlling will to act is due to diverse causes’. 138 His Honour held that the real issue in regard to automatism is whether an exercise of will is absent, not whether there is a lack of consciousness on the part of the accused...
eBook - ePub- John Hendy, Odette Hutchinson(Authors)
- 2015(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...It is important that you understand what differentiates non-insane automatism from insane automatism. Non-insane automatism is the result of some external factor, whereas insane automatism (often referred to simply as insanity) is the result of an internal factor. Therefore when considering automatism a critical question will be: is the defendant’s loss of control the result of an internal or an external factor? This question is crucial because the outcome of successfully running the defence of non-insane automatism is quite different from the outcome of successfully running the defence of insane automatism (insanity). You can see the different outcomes in the diagram below: We are now going to consider the defences of non-insane automatism and insane automatism separately. Non-insane automatism In the case of non-insane automatism the defendant is claiming to have been acting involuntarily as a result of some external factor. The defendant is said to have been acting in a state of automatism. In Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) Lord Denning defined automatism 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 when suffering from concussion . . . The key ingredients of this defence are: We will now look at each of these ingredients separately. The defendant suffers a complete loss of control In order for the defence of non-insane automatism to succeed the defendant must have suffered a complete loss of self-control...
eBook - ePub- (Author)
- 2013(Publication Date)
- Straightforward Publishing Digital(Publisher)
...A defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind rendering him incapable of knowing what he was doing, must be proved. Non-Insane Automatism If an outside factor causes the defendant to act like an automaton, this may be raised as the defence of automatism. Non-insane automatism results in a complete acquittal if proved. The essence of the defence is that the defendant’s actions are completely involuntary. In Hill v Baxter 1958, acts committed after a series of blows to the head were seen as examples of automatism. In another case, Whoolley 1997, the defendant admitted driving very close to a car and a fit of sneezing caused him to crash into this vehicle. The act of sneezing was seen as involuntary and constituted a defence of automatism. There are limits to the defence and each case is obviously considered on its merit. Intoxication If a defendant has voluntarily put himself into a state of intoxication then this will generally not be seen as a defence. However, whilst voluntary intoxication is not a defence in crimes of basic intent such as assault, manslaughter and rape, it might be allowed as a full or partial defence in other crimes such as: • Aggravated criminal damage with intention of endangering life • Theft • GBH or malicious wounding • Murder, where there is an unlawful killing with malice aforethought. All these crimes, with the exception of murder, treated as a special case, require some further intention to be established in addition to the basic offence. Involuntary intoxication In the case of involuntary intoxication, where the offender was given drink or drugs without his consent or knowledge, a defence might be raised both in cases of specific intent and also basic intent. In some cases, the courts have considered the side effects of drugs as a defence. In the case of Hardie 1985, the defendant had finished with his girlfriend and he became very upset and took valium to calm his nerves...
eBook - ePub- Jacqueline Martin(Author)
- 2014(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
...The trial judge allowed the defence of automatism to go to the jury, but D was convicted. Key Law An external cause of an automatic state is the defence of non-insane automatism rather than insanity. Key Comment This decision is only at Crown Court level. The recent trend of the appeal courts has been to regard behaviour that occurs after an external shock as having its source in the internal psychological or emotional state of D so that it provides a defence of insanity rather than non-insane automatism. Key Link Rabey (1980) SCR 513 Canada. 9.2.1 Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1993] 4 All ER 683, (1993) 99 Cr App R 429 Key Facts 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 to found a defence of automatism. 9.2.2 Bailey [1983] 2 All ER 503, (1983) 77 Cr App R 76 Key Facts D was a diabetic who failed to eat properly after taking insulin. This caused a hypoglycaemic state during which he hit V on the head with an iron bar. The trial judge ruled that the defence of automatism was not available. It was held that this ruling was wrong although D’s conviction stood as there was insufficient evidence to raise the defence of automatism. Key Law 1) Automatism, even if self-induced, is a defence to an offence which requires the prosecution to prove specific intent. 2) Self-induced automatism is also a defence to a basic intent offence if D was not reckless in getting into that state. 3) Where D is reckless in getting into a self-induced state of automatism, then he cannot rely on the defence for a basic intent offence. 9.2.2 Hardie [1984] 3 All ER 848, (1984) 80 Cr App R 157 Key Facts D, who was upset by the breakdown of a relationship, took some Valium belonging to his ex-girlfriend. She encouraged him to do this, stating that it would calm him down. He later started a fire in the bedroom of their flat...
eBook - ePub- Rodger Geary(Author)
- 2012(Publication Date)
- Routledge-Cavendish(Publisher)
...If the defendant’s muscles acted without the control of his mind, he is not blameworthy and will be able to plead automatism (Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)). Evidence of an ‘external factor’ is crucial to establish a plea of automatism (R v Quick (1973); R v Sullivan (1984)). Where the cause of the behaviour in question is ‘internal’, such as a ‘disease of the mind’ or a disease of the body, the relevant defence will be that of insanity rather than automatism (R v Hennessy (1989)). Epilepsy is classed as an ‘internal factor’ and will not therefore amount to automatism (R v Sullivan (1984)). Somewhat more surprisingly, sleepwalking is now regarded as having an internal cause and therefore is not capable of amounting to automatism (R v Burgess (1991)). Finally, it would seem that the English courts are likely to follow the judgment of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Rabey (1977), where Martin JA said: In my view, the ordinary stresses and disappointments of life which are the common lot of mankind do not constitute an external cause constituting an explanation for a malfunctioning of the mind which takes it out of the category of a ‘disease of the mind’. It follows that the disappointment or frustration caused by unrequited love is not to be equated with an ‘external’ cause capable of founding the defence of automatism. If a defendant cannot cope with rejection without entering into an autonomic state, then the courts will conclude that there is something ‘internally’ wrong with him. Impaired, reduced or partial control by the defendant will not found a defence of automatism. It seems that a total loss of voluntary control is required (AG’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) (1993)). Furthermore, if a defendant is at fault in bringing about the autonomic state, for example, by voluntarily taking dangerous drugs, he will have a defence to crimes of ‘specific intent’, but not to those of ‘basic intent’ (R v Lipman (1970); R v Bailey (1983))...
