64 Questions
What is the primary focus of the defence of automatism?
To deny the voluntary control over the conduct
What is the significance of the phrase 'connoting the state of a person who, through capable of action is not conscious of what he is doing' in the context of automatism?
It emphasizes the unconscious and involuntary nature of the action
What must the defendant show to plead automatism?
They suffered a complete loss of voluntary control, which was caused by an external factor, and they were not at fault for losing capacity
What is the effect of the defence of automatism if the defendant is successful?
The defendant is acquitted due to the denial of the conduct of the offence
What is the significance of the Broome v Perkins case in the context of automatism?
It established a precedent for automatism in driving cases
What is the implication of the presumption of voluntariness in the criminal law?
The defendant is presumed to have acted voluntarily
What is the primary requirement for establishing automatism in a legal context?
Total destruction of voluntary control
In the case of AG's Reference (No 2 of 1992), what was the condition of the lorry driver?
Driving without awareness
What is the consequence of prior fault in establishing automatism?
It substitutes for the missing fault element(s)
What was the outcome of the court's decision in R v Coley?
The conduct was still voluntary, albeit irrational
What are the three elements required to find liability via automatism?
- D must have done the AR elements in the state of automatism, 2. Ds automatism must have stemmed from earlier blameworthy conduct, 3. D must have been aware of the consequences
What is the key difference between automatism and intoxication in terms of prior fault?
Prior fault is applicable to both automatism and intoxication
What is the key aspect of the 'disease of the mind' concept?
It is a legal concept, not a medical one
In R v Kemp, what was the court's ruling?
D was found not guilty by reason of insanity
What is required for a defect of reason?
An inability to think or reason properly
In R v Clarke, what was the court's ruling?
D's condition did not prevent her from being able to reason
What is the key aspect of the 'lack of responsibility' element?
The defendant must show they did not know the nature or quality of their act or that it was wrong
In R v Windle, what was the court's ruling?
The defence of insanity was withdrawn from the jury
What is the key distinction in R v Quick and R v Hennessy?
Between internal and external causes
In R v Keal, what was the court's ruling?
The defence of insanity was withdrawn from the jury
What is the key test for the 'disease of the mind' concept?
The internal/external cause test
What is the relationship between the 'disease of the mind' and the 'defect of reason' concepts?
They are closely related
What is the key distinction between intoxication and offences of basic intent?
Intoxication requires subjective foresight, while basic intent requires objective foresight.
What is the effect of prior fault in offences of basic intent?
It substitutes for fault elements beyond strict liability.
What is the significance of R v Bailey in the context of prior fault?
It suggested that prior fault can be used for basic intent offences, but the prosecution must demonstrate recklessness.
What is the effect of pleading insanity as a defence?
It leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
What are the three options available to the court when a defendant is found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'?
Hospital order, suspension order, and absolute discharge.
What is the key difference between insanity and automatism?
Insanity relies on an internal cause, while automatism relies on an external cause.
What is the burden of proof when insanity is pleaded?
The defendant must prove their insanity on the balance of probabilities.
What is the source of the M'Naughten rules?
The debate surrounding the M'Naughten case.
What is the effect of the M'Naughten rules?
Every person is presumed sane, unless they can prove their insanity.
How many elements does the M'Naughten rule have?
3
In the context of automatism, a defendant's erratic or rational voluntariness is considered a lack of voluntariness.
False
A defendant's prior fault in losing capacity is a complete defence to automatism.
False
The presumption of voluntariness in the criminal law means that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not in a state of automatism.
False
Automatism is a complete defence to all crimes, including those of basic intent.
True
In driving cases, automatism is applied very broadly and is often successful as a defence.
False
The prosecution must prove that the defendant was in a state of automatism beyond a reasonable doubt.
False
D's prior fault can replace voluntariness at T2 in specific intent offences.
False
A defendant found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' can appeal the verdict.
True
Automatism leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
False
Insanity requires proof of external factors, such as circumstances surrounding the offense.
False
The legal burden of proof is reversed when automatism is pleaded.
False
A disease of the mind is a medical concept.
False
Prior fault can establish reckonlessness in offences of basic intent.
True
A defendant who pleads insanity bears the burden of proving their sanity.
False
The M'Naughten rules have three elements that must be proven to establish insanity.
True
Automatism can be found if the defendant's actions were influenced by a mental illness, even if they were still conscious.
False
The defence of automatism can be used to negate the mens rea of an offence, but not the actus reus.
True
Automatism and insanity are defences that can be used interchangeably.
False
If a defendant is found to have committed an offence while in a state of automatism, they will be found not guilty.
False
The court in R v Coley held that the defendant's conduct was voluntary, despite being irrational and influenced by heavy cannabis use.
True
Automatism can be used as a defence for any type of offence, including offences of basic intent.
False
The three elements required to find liability via automatism are that the defendant committed the actus reus, that the defendant was in a state of automatism, and that the defendant had prior fault.
True
A defect of reason must always be a result of an internal cause.
False
The M'Naughten rules apply only to offences of specific intent.
False
A defendant can plead insanity if they are unable to reason due to external factors such as hypoglycaemia.
True
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness but knows what they are doing is legally wrong cannot plead insanity.
True
The phrase 'disease of the mind' refers to a medical concept rather than a legal concept.
False
A defendant who is able to reason but is suffering from a mental illness can still plead insanity.
False
The M'Naughten rules require a defendant to show that they did not know what they were doing was morally wrong.
False
Automatism and insanity are mutually exclusive defences.
True
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness and is unable to reason can plead automatism.
False
The M'Naughten rules have been abolished in modern law.
False
Study Notes
Automatism
- Defined by Lord Denning as: "connoting the state of a person who, through capable of action is not conscious of what he is doing…it means unconscious involuntary action, and it is a defence because the mind does not go with what is being done"
- Denial of voluntariness: ordinary link between mind and behavior is absent or distorted
- Can occur where prohibited conduct occurs due to involuntary movements of the body
- Leads to an acquittal, as the defendant is not engaging with the conduct
Automatism: Denial
- A complete loss of voluntary control of conduct is required
- Any degree of voluntariness is still considered voluntariness
- Erratic or irrational voluntariness is still considered voluntariness
- Presumption of voluntariness in criminal law
Application: Automatism
- Applied narrowly in driving cases
- Broome v Perkins: diabetic failed to take sufficient food after insulin injection, drove erratically, and collided with another car
- AGs Reference (No 2 of 1992): lorry driver had a condition of driving without awareness, killed two people
- R v Coley: defendant believed he was a video game character, killed a neighbor, and blamed heavy cannabis use
Automatism Prior Fault
- Like intoxication, prior fault can substitute for the missing fault element(s) at T2
- 3 elements required:
- D must have done the AR elements in the state of automatism
- D's automatism must have stemmed from earlier blameworthy conduct (prior fault)
- D must have suffered from a disease of the mind
- Disease of the mind: an internally caused lack of MR/voluntariness
- Legal concept, not medical
- Physical state of the brain or permanence of the condition is irrelevant
Insanity
-
Not a medical category, but a legal concept
-
Relies on internal cause of lack of responsibility
-
3 elements:
- D does AR and forms corresponding MR, but claims they were insane at the time
- A denial of offence: D does AR but lacks MR due to insanity
- Special verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity
-
M'Naughten rules:
- Every person is presumed sane
- D must rebut the presumption
- R v Sullivan: epileptic seizure, kicked friend in the head, and caused GBH### Insanity Defence
-
Must meet three criteria:
- Disease of the mind
- Defect of reason
- Lack of responsibility
Disease of the Mind
- An internally caused lack of MR/voluntariness
- Not a medical concept, but a legal one
- Physical state of the brain or permanence of the condition is irrelevant
- R v Kemp: Physical condition causing a congestion of blood in the brain can be considered a disease of the mind
- R v Quick: External causes, such as hypoglycaemia, can be distinguished from internal causes
Defect of Reason
- Must be a defect of reason, not just absent-mindedness
- R v Clarke: Mild depression and absent-mindedness did not prevent Defendant from being able to reason
- Defendant must be unable to think or reason properly
Lack of Responsibility
- Must fall within one of two options:
- Did not know the nature or quality of their act
- Did not know what they were doing was wrong
- Relates to physical aspects of Defendant's conduct
- R v Windle: Defendant knew what he was doing was legally wrong, despite being weak-willed and obsessed with the idea
- R v Keal: Defendant knew what he was doing was legally wrong, despite being mentally ill and under delusions
Test your knowledge on the automatism defence in criminal law, including its definition and application in cases like Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
