Defences Automatism Notes

Automatism

Loss of voluntary control due to external factors.

Hill v Baxter (CA 1957)

Facts

• The defendant drove a van across a junction at high speed, ignoring an illuminated “Halt” sign and collided with a car.

• He was charged with dangerous driving and failing to conform to a traffic sign but contended that he had been unconscious at the time as a result of a sudden illness.

Issue

• Automatism

Judgment

• Lord Goddard CJ (concurring)

• The relevant Act contained an absolute prohibition against the behaviour in question and the defendant's state of mind was irrelevant.

• Automatism could be a defence but the onus rested on the defence to prove it and they failed to do so – while it was open to court to believe that the defendant's evidence was consistent with his falling asleep at the wheel, this was not a defence (a sleepy driver has an obligation to pull over)

• Devlin J (concurring)

• The prosecution do not need to disprove automatism unless there is first some prima facie evidence that it is an issue.

• Pearson J (concurring)

• The issue of automatism will not arise unless some evidence is adduced to rebut the presumption that the driver was not in control of himself while driving.

• In the case of an epileptic fit, sudden onset of disease resulting in a coma, blow to the head from a stone or attack from a swarm of bees the accused is prevented from exercising control over his limbs and may avail of the defence.

• If he falls asleep or has an epileptic fit of which there was some foreshadowing, then during the time he had warning, his continuing to drive constitutes dangerous driving as he neglects his elementary duty to retain control while at the wheel.

Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland (HoL 1961)

Facts

• The defendant killed a girl during what he described as 'blackness' coming over him.

• The medical evidence suggested that it may have been cause by psychomotor epilepsy.

Issue

• Automatism – Contrast with insanity

Judgment

• Viscount Kilmuir LC (concurring)

• As the evidence attributed any involuntariness to a disease of the mind, the defence of automatism can not be raised and the only defence can lie within the M'Naghten Rules.

• Before the issue of automatism can be put to a jury, there must be a proper foundation for it – this is because the accused is always presumed to have normal mental capacities.

• Once a proper foundation for the defence of automatism has been laid before the jury, they should acquit if they are in a state of real doubt as to whether the accused was in a state of automatism.

• Lord Tucker (concurring – agreed with Lord Morris and the Lord Chancellor)

• Lord Denning (concurring)

• An act is not involuntary merely because it is not remembered, could not be resisted, is unintentional or its consequences unforeseen.

• Not every involuntary act leads to an acquittal – drunkenness or diseases of the mind do not make an involuntary act a defence.

• Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur is a disease of the mind and justifies someone being committed to a mental hospital than subject to an unqualified acquittal.

• The prosecution can rely on the presumption that acts are voluntary, though once this is prima facie rebutted they must prove its voluntariness beyond a reasonable doubt.

• In this case the evidence is that the black out originated from a disease of the mind.

• Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest (concurring)

• Lord Hodson (concurring – agreed with the Lord Chancellor and Lord Morris)

R v Quick (CA 1973)

Facts

• The defendants, psychiatric nurses, were accused with assaulting a patient in their place of work.

• One of the defendants relied on the defence of automatism, on the grounds that he was hypoglycaemic, had taken insulin followed by spirits and didn't eat food and the medical evidence adduced showed that this was consistent with his medical condition.

Issue

• Automatism – Distinction between automatism and insanity.

Judgment (Lawton LJ)

• Whether a defect of the mind is transitory or permanent, curable or incurable is irrelevant – the consequences of a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity is not a matter for the courts.

• A disease of the mind under the M'Naghten Rules is a malfunctioning of the mind caused by disease and does not include a malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect induced by external factors.

• In addition, self-induced automatism will not be an excuse, nor will one which could reasonably have been foreseen (eg taking alcohol against medical advice.)

• In this case the mental condition arose from the use of insulin and the accused may have the defence put to the jury – if they find that the automatism was not brought on by the alcohol or his failure to eat meals and that he was not culpable for failing to avert the episode by eating sugar, they may quash his conviction.

R v Bailey (CA 1983)

Facts

• The accused, who suffered from diabetes, visited the man for whom his girlfriend had left him.

• While there, he told the victim that he felt unwell and took a mixture of sugar and water.

• A few minutes later he hit the victim on the head with an iron bar and upon being charged, entered the defence that his act was automatic as the result of hypoglycaemia caused by his failure to eat after taking the suger and water.

Issue

• Automatism

Judgment (Griffiths LJ)

• A state of...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Irish Criminal Law Notes.