Ch3, Actus reus: Automatism

Contents
Introduction
3.1 Automatism
3.2 Limits to the defence of automatism
3.3 Prior fault
Reflect and review .

-prohibited conduct
-existence of circumstance/s
-particular consequence caused by D's conduct

-automatism
-as it affects the conduct element of the actus reus
-liability for omission to act in relation to that element

3.2.1 Where the defendant exercised some control

3.2.2 Where the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be
brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity
a)Disposal of the defendant
b)Burden of Proof
3.2.3 Insane automatism
3.2.4 Sane automatism

Automatism

Ruled that subject to limited exceptions

-the burden was on the prosecution to prove the defendant's guilty beyond reasonable doubt
-he emphasized a point in relation to defendant's conduct as a requirement that it is essential that it should be a voluntary act...in every criminal case

Automatism

Lord Denning in Bratty v AG for NI [1961] 3 All ER 523 HL said:
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
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 sleepwalking…

-It follows that in order to attract criminal liability a defendant’s conduct must be voluntary,

Automatism



and Burns v Bidder [1967] 2 QB 227). Similarly, if the same thing happened
because he had a heart attack or epileptic fit, his conduct is involuntary. Where a defendant
has no control over what he is doing he is said to be acting as an automaton.
-
-Automatism-is a plea by D that his actions were not under the control of his conscious mind, i.e. that his bodily movements were unwilled and involuntary

3.2 Limits to the defence of automatism

Courts have brought defence of automatism under three ways of limits:

-Defendant exercised some control
-Condition giving rise to this defence can be brought within the ambit of rules on insanity
-prior fault

3.2.1 Where the defendant exercised some control

Bell [1984] Goff Lj

Where the defendant exercised some control
-involuntary act - no criminal liability
-motorist swarm of bees or
-malevolent passenger or
-went suddenly unconscious by reason of black out
-failing of breaks

3.2.1 Where the defendant exercised some control

-Hill v Baxter [1958]
-Broome v Perkins [1987] (Div Ct); Attorney General's reference (No2 of 1992 [1993] CA)

-Defence of automatism will not succeed if should there be any control on part of the defendant
-not even if s/he is in trance-like state if
-if his movements appear to be purposive to any extent
-in Isitt [1978] CA
-The driving was purposive. He had some control

-accident
-dangerous driving
-pursued by the police
-defendant psychiatric evidence
-original accident had caused an hysterical fugue
-leading to loss of memory
-his subconscious had taken over so he did not know what he was doing when driving
-convicted
-CA dismissed appeal holding
-automatism was a defence
-hysterical fugue, rendering a driver's mind to shut to moral inhibitions was no defence
-just that his mind was not working in top gear, that did not amount to automatism

Code is not yet a law

Includes
includes 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.

3.2.2 Where the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be
brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity


Automatism resulting from a disease of the mind constitutes insane automatism.

Time Length of Suffering gives rise to two types of automatism,

-Insane automatism
-Sane Automatism

TWO practical ramifications flow from this distinction:

THIS AFFECTS DISPOSAL OF DEFENDANT AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

A defendant will be deemed to have been suffering from insane automatism where
the condition arose from an internal factor and was therefore likely to recur. 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.†

3.2.2 Where the condition which gave rise to the automatism can be
brought within the ambit of the rules on insanity

Disposal of Defendent


Criminal Procedure Act 1991

-Special verdict is a verdict of not guilty
-These methods of disposal should not be viewed as punishments
-Earlier the judges did not have much powers and all acquitted, of a qualified insane acquittal, were to be sent to the hospoital
-if murder - mandatory indefinite stay in hospital
-hospital stay with or without a restriction in time is still an option but
-but following alternatives are available
-this include
-guardianship order
-supervision order
-absolute discharge

See Section 3 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Fitness to Pleade) Act 1991

Sane Automatism

-Defendant owes to offer some medical evidence to support the plea of automatism
-Prosecution owes to disprove automatism beyond reasonable doubt