Automatism Automatism is a plea by a defendant that his/her actions were involuntary, that is, were not under the

e control of their conscious mind. D entitled to complete acquittal. This can be the result of loss of physical control, for example: o a push by a third party, o a heart attack, o brake failure or o an attack by a swarm of bees while driving a car. o Or it can be the result of loss of mental control such as a blow to the head or sleepwalking.

 In the case of Bratty v Attorney General for orthern Ireland !"#$"%, Lord Denning explained the position as follows: o No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context... means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a refle 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 sleepwalking... Sleepwalking is insane automatism

 In the case of Bell !"#'(%, Goff L! gave some other examples of involuntary conduct for which no criminal liability may attach: o .. a motorist... "who# has been attac$ed while driving by% for e ample a swarm of bees or a malevolent passenger, or because he has been affected by a sudden blinding pain, or because he has become suddenly unconscious by reason of a blac$out, or because his vehicle has suffered some failure, for example, through a blow)out or through the brakes failing. *imilarly, if the same thing happened because he had a heart attac$ or epileptic fit, his conduct is involuntary. +here a defendant has no control over what he is doing% he is said to be acting as an automaton.

 &wo types' sane/insane automatism *ane automatism arises where the automatism is caused by an e ternal factor such as hypoglycaemia ,low blood sugar caused by, for example, a diabetic having ta$en too much insulin-, concussion caused by a blow to the head% alcohol or drugs. Automatism may e.ually arise due to disease of the mind ,insane automatism- which results in a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. /ourt tend to classify as insanity automatic conduct which poses a threat to others, is li$ely to be repeated and which is capable of being treated.

 0ental or physical disorders which may affect the working of the mind have these characteristics and by holding such conduct to be insane automatism the courts are enabled to hold the person not guilty while at the same time rendering the defendant sub(ect to such treatment as they thin$ fit. On the other hand automatic conduct which is caused by% for e ample% a blow on the head, is not li$ely to recur, is not treatable and poses no further threat to the community. It is safe therefore to allow the defendant an unfettered acquittal on the basis of non) insane automatism

*ane automatism *ane automatism arises where the automatism is caused by an e ternal factor such as hypoglycaemia ,low blood sugar caused by, for example, a diabetic having ta$en too much insulin-, concussion caused by a blow to the head% alcohol or drugs

1 v +itchell) it was +itchell who was deemed to be the cause of the elderly woman,s death rather than the man whom Mitchell caused to fall on top of her

Quick) take too much insulin) malfunctioning of mind by the 2external factor3 In the case of -uic$ !"#45% the defendant ,a diabetic nurse who had attac$ed a patient- claimed to be suffering from hypoglycaemia having ta$en his insulin, but very little food and an amount of alcohol. 6e was charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm contrary to s.(4 of the Offences Against the 7erson Act "'$". .e wished to raise the defence of automatism &he /ourt of Appeal quashed his conviction but with some reservations given the impact of the voluntarily consumed alcohol on his condition ,see prior fault below-.

 8awton 89 said: o The difficulty arises as soon as the .uestion is asked whether he should be detained in a mental hospital. o o mental hospital would admit a diabetic merely because he had a low blood sugar reaction. And later: o :uick;s alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not caused by his diabetes but by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. o *uch malfunctioning of his mind as there was% was caused by an e ternal factor and not by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed the working of his mind. o 6e should have had his defence left to the <ury.

/ontrast: = aware if did not eat properly after insulin then = will cause violence, defence not available On the face of in a case of non)insane automatism. 6owever, there is evidence that on several previous occasions > has failed to eat properly following the insulin in<ection and that he is aware that on such occasions he is liable to blac$ out and act aggressively. In this situation the court will hold that his recklessness in failing to eat properly coupled with his awareness of the consequences is adequate evidence of rec$lessness required to establish the mens rea of the assault. o Bailey

*ane automatism) hypoglycaemia !take too much insulin)external factor% ?ut Insane) hyperglycaemia !caused by high blood glucose)internal factor% The apparent inconsistency in the law, which results in a finding of insanity where a person has raised the defence of automatism caused by hyperglycaemia but a finding of sane automatism if caused by hypoglycaemia, has been sub<ect to criticism.

@xclude stress as it is ordinary for mankind /onsider now the courts; treatment of stress. In .ennessy !"#'#% the /ourt of Appeal approved the ruling in the /anadian case of 1abey !"#4'% that the ordinary stresses and disappointments of life are ,the lot of man$ind, "fate% natural circumstances of man$ind# and would not% in any event, constitute an e ternal cause. It would seem from these decisions that, in the unli$ely event of the courts accepting that stress could result in automatism, it would necessarily be insane automatism.

?ut included 7T*,stress- = caused by 2external3 rape 6owever, see 0 v & !"##A%. In the case of 1 v T !"##A% it was held that post)traumatic stress disorder 12&*D3 ,which had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist- could amount to sane automatism. The court held that where this condition resulted in a normal person carrying out an act of violence, this was not in itself a disease of the mind. The 7T*= which the defendant suffered from had been caused by her having been raped a few days before her act of violence against another person. 6er case, the court held, was distinguishable from those of Broome and 4ssit [fail in raising defence due to not fully loc in daydreaming state] where there had only been a partial loss of control.

 In this case there was evidence that the defendant% who was in what was described as a ,dissociative state, arising from being raped which resulted in post)traumatic stress% was acting as though in a ,dream,. It could be said here that the rape was the e ternal factor which caused the automatism in the same way that a blow to the head which causes concussion is an e ternal factor. Therefore if the 7T*= resulted in more than one act of violence on the part of a defendant, the principles outlined above would come into play and, for that defendant, the condition would be reclassified.

/ontrast: *ane)A excluded dissociative state caused by his own psychological or emotional make)up 1 v T should be contrasted with 0abey "/anada case# in which 1 was charged with causing a girl, with whom he had become infatuated , actual bodily harm with intent. He claimed that he was suffering from non)insane automatism in the form of a dissociative state caused by the psychological blow of discovering that she held him in low esteem . The *upreme /ourt approved the statement by 0artin 9. that Bthe ordinary stresses and disappointments of life which are the common lot of man$ind do not constitute an e ternal cause . . .C.

 In effect, the court was saying that any dissociative state had been caused by his own psychological or emotional ma$e)up and that is an internal factor. 0ape on the other hand is not the common lot of man$ind and could have a devastating effect on even the most well)balanced individual& it can properly be treated as an external factor

Limits to the defence of automatism The defence of automatism has proved unpopular with the courts as it is difficult to disprove. ot surprisingly the courts have sought to limit its operation to the clearest cases. There are, broadly, three ways in which the courts have limited the defence of automatism: o +here the defendant retained limited powers of control. o +here there was prior fault on the part of the defendant. o +here the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity.

5. 6here the defendant retains some powers of control) No defence *hould there be any conscious control on the part of the defendant the defence of automatism will not succeed. Defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control o Attorney General,s 0eference o. D of "##D- !"##(%

=ay =ream but not loss consciousness) o defence In Attorney General,s 0eference , o. D of "##D- !"##(%, =, a lorry driver was charged with causing death by reckless driving. .e had been driving for si hours and was found by a psychiatrist to have been driving ,without awareness, when he crashed into another vehicle and killed two people. The condition of driving ,without awareness, is caused by repetitive visual stimuli and results in a trance )li$e state ,rather like day)dreaming- but does not cause loss of consciousness 1such as sleep3. =;s plea of automatism therefore failed, because although he was not fully in control of his actions, he was partly in control and had not lost full consciousness.

 *omeone ,driving without awareness7 within retains some control. .e would be able to steer the vehicle and usually to react and return to full awareness when confronted by significant stimuli.C &here was therefore no evidence of automatism Note' if failed% D may raised insane defence as long as satisfied the requirement

@xclude ,hysterical fugue, as it shut the moral inhibition and still purposive driving /ompare the case of 4sitt !"#4'% This case concerned a defendant who was involved in a road accident after which he returned to his van and drove off in a manner which was ;manifestly dangerous;. 6e was pursued by the police, finally escaping through some fields. At his trial for dangerous driving there was evidence that he appeared to have been drunk. .e raised psychiatric evidence claiming that the original accident had caused ,an hysterical fugue, leading to memory loss' his subconscious mind had ta$en over so that he did not appreciate what he was doing when he was driving.

o .sterical "too e cited form# fugue , dissociative fugue or simply fugue, is a mental disorder where the afflicted individual is prone to ta$ing une pected trips in a state of unconsciousness such that he is unable to recall where he has been, or how he ended up in a particular place 6e was convicted and his appeal against conviction was dismissed by the /ourt of Appeal which confirmed that, although automatism was a defence to the offence of dangerous driving, an ,hysterical fugue, rendering a driver,s mind shut to moral inhibitions% was no defence. &he driving was purposive. .e had some control.

o This was considered too draconian by the 8aw /ommission. The =raft /riminal /ode ,8aw /om o. "44 /l.55- included within the definition of automatism any movement which: is a reflex, spasm or convulsion& or occurs while he is in a condition... depriving him of effective control of the act. o This is less harsh than the present re.uirement of total deprivation of control but please note that this /ode is not, and is unlikely to become, law.

But defence 4ncluded loss of control by the fault of the car *uppose, for example, D is driving his car when% through no fault of his own, his power bra$es fail and he passes traffic lights at red. 6e is entitled to be ac.uitted on the basis of a total lack of control. This point was made by *almon !. in *purge: BThere does not seem to this court to be any real distinction between a man suddenly deprived of all control of a motor car by a sudden affliction of his person and being so deprived by some defect which suddenly manifests itself in the motor car. 4n both cases the motor car is suddenly out of control of its driver through no fault of his However if ! under full control then even pedestrian had come out of sudden then no defence Neal v 0eynold

"ontrast# if poor maintenance of car caused $y !rive then no defence Burns v Bidder ,"#$"- a driver was charged with the offence of failing to accord precedence to a pedestrian on a crossing. 6is defence was that his action was involuntary as he had suffered brake failure. &he court held that if this had happened without any fault on the part of the driver ) for e ample because the defect was not the result of poor maintenance ) then he was entitled to an acquittal So, automatism can be used to strict liability offences Contrast: sleeping on wheel no defence %alling asleep no defence to careless&dangerous driving

/ontrast: 7ost)traumatic stress disorder 1 v T, defence succeed due to 7T*= suffered by = due to being raped few day ago If you can ignore the fact that despite the stress disorder, it was highly unli$ely that the loss of self) control was total, .ow long will it be before the effect of the rape will cease to be an e ternal cause arid become an internal oneE /onsider% for e ample% D% who is playing football when he receives a blow on the head. .e appears to recover% but then punches the referee. 0edical evidence shows that =3s conduct was probably due to the blow on the head& an external factor when would support non)insane automatism.

 +hat, however% would the position be if on the following wee$end he punched another referee and again claimed it was due to the blow on the head8 .owever% it must depend whether it is internal or e ternal% if this blowing case simply caused D himself ordinary 9emotion7% then he may not succeed.

:. 2rior fault on D) No defence +here the defendant,s automatism arises through some prior fault of his own, then he may not be successful with his plea of automatism. For example, where a defendant falls asleep ) as opposed to having suddenly lost consciousness ) at the wheel of his car it is likely that he will be deemed to have been at fault for not having stopped driving when he started to feel drowsy, that is% when he was still able to e ercise control.

Non self)induced) for basic and specific intent crime *elf)induced) for specific crime *ane automatism has thus been sub)divided into two categories. These are: o Non self)induced automatism, for example concussion caused by a blow to the head, hypoglycaemia or a swarm of bees in the car. This is a defence both to crimes of specific and basic intent. Bailey

o *elf)induced automatism which arises from voluntary into ication by alcohol or dangerous drugs. This is not a defence to crimes of basic intent% although it will be a defence to a crime of specific intent where the automatism prevented the defendant from forming the necessary mens rea for the crime. A similar position operates with respect to preventable automatism as where a person suffering hay fever causes a car crash in the courses of a snee;ing fit.

'ecapitulation# (ntroduction of $asic and specific intent crime /hapter G of this guide deals in more detail with specific intent and basic intent offences. 6ere is a brief recapitulation. A specific intent offence is one which requires the prosecution to prove an actual intention on the part of the defendant. o 0urder is expressed as a specific intent offence and thus re.uires proof of an intention on the part of the defendant to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm ,0oloney-. A basic intent offence could be described as one for which proof of rec$lessness or negligence on the part of the defendant is sufficient.

 For example, see the offence of criminal damage discussed in /hapter D and /hapter "4. If you consider the definition of this offence set out in /hapter D you will see that the mens rea for this offence is expressed as ,intention, or ,rec$lessness,. It follows from this that rec$lessness is sufficient mens rea for the offence of criminal damage% provided the indictment includes a reference to rec$lessness.

Intoxication) no defence for basic intent crime as everyone presume aware the ris$ of the drug will lead to violence and aggression The 1ule in +a(ews$i !"#44% that self)induced into ication is no defence to a basic intent crime applies equally to automatism. The defence may not be relied upon as the defendant will be deemed to have been reckless in allowing himself to get into that state in the first place, as everybody is presumed to $now that drin$ing alcohol or ta$ing recreational drugs alters a person,s state of mind and can% in some cases% lead to violence and aggression. Therefore an awareness of ris$ on the part of a particular defendant at the time of performing the harmful conduct does not need to be proved

Lipman !"#4A% = took the drug 8*=. = experienced a hallucination and kill his girl friend 6is conviction was manslaughter was upheld& both manslaughter and the assault upon which it was based on crimes of basic intent and evidence of his drugged state was irrelevant even though he was acting as a complete automaton.

=efence included non)dangerous drug as long as = did not aware otwithstanding the above, it seems that self)induced automatism due to ta$ing non)dangerous drugs, e.g. medication, may provide a defence to basic intent offences. 0 v .ardie !"#'G% D had some tablets by the woman with whom he was living who told him that they were totally harmless. 8ater, having consumed and did criminal damage The /ourt of Appeal held that the +a(ews$i rules only applied to alcohol and dangerous drugs. 6here the drug was non) dangerous in the sense that it was not li$ely to cause unpredictability or aggression, the defendant should be entitled to rely upon it% even in a crime of basic intent, to explain the absence of recklessness&

 The /ourt of Appeal is, in effect, treating the consumption of non) dangerous drugs in the same way as involuntary into ication. 4f% however% the defendant is aware that the consumption of such a drug in his case will lead to aggression or unpredictable behaviour, yet nevertheless persists in taking the drug, this will satisfy the requirement of rec$lessness

!ia$etic ! reali)ed that risk of violence if not eating after consumed insulin- *o defence 0 v Bailey !"#'5% ? who suffered from diabetes was charged with wounding with intent and unlawful wounding in that he had struck the victim on the head. ? claimed to have been acting in a state of non)insane automatism brought about by failure to eat properly after a close of insulin which had led to hypoglycaemia. The /ourt of Appeal held that since he was no aware that his failure to eat properly could cause him to become aggressive, he was entitled to rely upon his self)induced automatism not only in relation to wounding with intent which is a specific intent crime, but also to the charge of unlawful wounding which is a crime of basic intent.

/ontrast situation: blackout If = is aware that he blac$s out from time to time% he may nevertheless be entitled to rely upon it as a defence if he is in no way to blame for the blac$outs. .owever% if $nowing of this possibility% he drives a car% he will be guilty of dangerous driving from the outset.

<. 6here the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity ) the no defence on sane automatism The main techni.ue for limiting the use and usefulness of the defence of automatism derives from its affinities with insanity. Automatism resulting from a disease of the mind constitutes insane automatism and does not result in an unqualified acquittal. The courts have widened the notion of insanity far beyond its comfort ;one to include mental conditions which few, let alone the medical profession, would regard as insanity. As a result, whenever a person claims that his/her mind was not in control of hisHher actions there is the ris$ that the court will interpret the cause as mental illness with all the conse.uences this entails.

 A defendant will be deemed to have been suffering from insane% as opposed to sane, automatism where the condition arose from an internal factor. It need not be a condition which has been suffered by the defendant for any length of time. Thus, there are two types of automatism' insane automatism and sane automatism. &wo important practical ramifications flow from the distinction: the disposal of the defendant and the burden of proof.

Different of sane and insane automatism i. =isposal of the defendant +here the defendant is successful with the defence of sane automatism the verdict will be one of ,not guilty; ) a finding of which will result in an unqualified acquittal. +here, however, the defendant is found to have been suffering from insane automatism the verdict will be ,not guilty by reason of insanity,. This is called the special verdict and gives the <udge powers of disposal which are not available where there has been an un.ualified ac.uittal. ,*ee the /riminal 7rocedure ,Insanity and Infitness to 7lead- Act "##". &hese methods of disposal should not be viewed as punishments' the special verdict is a verdict of not guilty.

ii. ?urden of proof The distinction between sane and insane automatism has an important impact on the burden of proof: Sane automatism The defendant bears only an evidential burden of adducing some medical evidence to support the plea of automatism. The burden remains on the prosecution to disprove automatism beyond reasonable doubt. (nsane automatism +insanity, The burden of proof here is on whoever raises the defence. +here the defendant raises it, the defence bears the burden of proof on balance of probabilities. +here it is raised by the prosecution, then the prosecution bears the burden of proof, the

standard being beyond reasonable doubt.

@xample of application: In Bratty v Attorney)General for Northern 4reland% 8ord =enning said that it will rarely be enough for the accused to give evidence on oath that he suffered a blac$out. +edical evidence will generally be required. =nce the (udge is satisfied that there is evidence of automatism, he must decide whether it is non) insane or insane automatism. If he rules that the automatism was caused by a disease of the mind, he must direct the <ury that it is for the defendant to satisfy them on a balance of probabilities that he was acting as an insane automaton. 4f he rules that the automatism was caused by an e ternal factor such as a blow on the head, he must direct the <ury that it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily brought

about the actus reus and that he did not do so automatically. This is a very hard burden for the prosecution to discharge and is why the courts have ruled that the accused must provide substantial evidence of non)insane automatism before the prosecution needs to rebut it. *uppose D is charged with driving through a red light and pleads that he blac$ed out <ust before going through the lights. If all that was required by the D to discharge the evidential burden was for him to say on oath that he blac$ed out, leaving the prosecutor to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not blac$out, it would become a very popular defence.

Further explanation: 4nsanity is one of the e ceptions to the rule in -oolmington !"#5G% o ) innocent until prove guilty o As if = claim insane, = has to prove it instead of 7rosecutor has to disprove it% o That mean = did not look as 2innocent3 to what he claim as insane Therefore where the defendant raises a defence of insane automatism the burden of proof rests on him to prove on balance of probabilities 1the civil standard3 that, at the relevant time, he was suffering from insane automatism. 4t is rare% however% for defendants to raise this defence. +here ,as is more usual- it is raised by the prosecution, then the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was insane at the relevant time.

 It is frequently raised by the prosecution in response to a plea by the defendant that he was suffering from sane automatism. o If = claim sane automatism, then he entitled complete ac.uittal. o To prevent this, prosecutor has to raised that = actually suffer from insane automatism so that although ac.uittal but sent to the 27leasure of 6er 0a<esty3 The distinction between insanity and automatism has become a crucial one. Defendants would prefer to plead automatism because the term is less offensive ,and more appropriately reflects the condition they were in at the time of the offence- and because the outcome of this plea is acquittal. The outcome of a successful plea of insanity used to result in the compulsory committal of D to a psychiatric institution for indefinite detention.

 *ince 5>>5% however% the court may so detain an insane defendant% or may alternatively place D under supervision or simply give him an absolute discharge. It is the 03 aghten 1ules which set out the defence of insanity. The defence as a whole will be considered in detail below. For the moment, please bear in mind the following points: o It is the part of the rule that the defect of reason be ,caused by a disease of the mind, which is at issue in cases concerning automatism. o Although medical evidence is essential here, insanity is a legal concept, not a medical one. It is a question of law and it follows that it is for the

(udge to rule whether the condition the defendant was suffering from constitutes a ,disease of the mind,.

Different area of /riminal Liability 4n the *tate of Affairs? /ases even D is involuntary There is no rule which says that criminal liability cannot be imposed without some voluntary conduct on the part of the accused. 7arliament could, for example, legislate that it was a criminal offence to be over six feet tall. In such an unlikely event it would be no defence for the accused to say that he has no control over his height. Of course, you will say that 7arliament would never enact such an offence, but it has to be accepted that it is theoretically open to 7arliament to do so ana, as it happens, there are some offences which appear to impose criminal liability without any proof of a voluntary act on the part of the defendant.

 These offences are often known as status offences or state of affairs offences.