Criminal Law: Automatism Defence
64 Questions
7 Views

Choose a study mode

Play Quiz
Study Flashcards
Spaced Repetition
Chat to lesson

Podcast

Play an AI-generated podcast conversation about this lesson

Questions and Answers

What is the primary focus of the defence of automatism?

  • To argue for a lack of mens rea
  • To establish a diminished level of responsibility
  • To deny the occurrence of the prohibited conduct
  • To deny the voluntary control over the conduct (correct)
  • 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 suggests that the accused is partially responsible for their actions
  • It emphasizes the unconscious and involuntary nature of the action (correct)
  • It highlights the importance of the accused's mental state
  • It implies that the accused is fully aware of their actions
  • What must the defendant show to plead automatism?

  • They suffered a partial loss of voluntary control
  • They suffered a complete loss of voluntary control, which was caused by an external factor, and they were not at fault for losing capacity (correct)
  • They were completely unaware of their actions
  • They were under the influence of a substance at the time of the conduct
  • What is the effect of the defence of automatism if the defendant is successful?

    <p>The defendant is acquitted due to the denial of the conduct of the offence</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of the Broome v Perkins case in the context of automatism?

    <p>It established a precedent for automatism in driving cases</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the implication of the presumption of voluntariness in the criminal law?

    <p>The defendant is presumed to have acted voluntarily</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the primary requirement for establishing automatism in a legal context?

    <p>Total destruction of voluntary control</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the case of AG's Reference (No 2 of 1992), what was the condition of the lorry driver?

    <p>Driving without awareness</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the consequence of prior fault in establishing automatism?

    <p>It substitutes for the missing fault element(s)</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What was the outcome of the court's decision in R v Coley?

    <p>The conduct was still voluntary, albeit irrational</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What are the three elements required to find liability via automatism?

    <ol> <li>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</li> </ol> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key difference between automatism and intoxication in terms of prior fault?

    <p>Prior fault is applicable to both automatism and intoxication</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key aspect of the 'disease of the mind' concept?

    <p>It is a legal concept, not a medical one</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Kemp, what was the court's ruling?

    <p>D was found not guilty by reason of insanity</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is required for a defect of reason?

    <p>An inability to think or reason properly</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Clarke, what was the court's ruling?

    <p>D's condition did not prevent her from being able to reason</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key aspect of the 'lack of responsibility' element?

    <p>The defendant must show they did not know the nature or quality of their act or that it was wrong</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Windle, what was the court's ruling?

    <p>The defence of insanity was withdrawn from the jury</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key distinction in R v Quick and R v Hennessy?

    <p>Between internal and external causes</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In R v Keal, what was the court's ruling?

    <p>The defence of insanity was withdrawn from the jury</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key test for the 'disease of the mind' concept?

    <p>The internal/external cause test</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the relationship between the 'disease of the mind' and the 'defect of reason' concepts?

    <p>They are closely related</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key distinction between intoxication and offences of basic intent?

    <p>Intoxication requires subjective foresight, while basic intent requires objective foresight.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of prior fault in offences of basic intent?

    <p>It substitutes for fault elements beyond strict liability.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the significance of R v Bailey in the context of prior fault?

    <p>It suggested that prior fault can be used for basic intent offences, but the prosecution must demonstrate recklessness.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of pleading insanity as a defence?

    <p>It leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What are the three options available to the court when a defendant is found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'?

    <p>Hospital order, suspension order, and absolute discharge.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the key difference between insanity and automatism?

    <p>Insanity relies on an internal cause, while automatism relies on an external cause.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the burden of proof when insanity is pleaded?

    <p>The defendant must prove their insanity on the balance of probabilities.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the source of the M'Naughten rules?

    <p>The debate surrounding the M'Naughten case.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    What is the effect of the M'Naughten rules?

    <p>Every person is presumed sane, unless they can prove their insanity.</p> Signup and view all the answers

    How many elements does the M'Naughten rule have?

    <p>3</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In the context of automatism, a defendant's erratic or rational voluntariness is considered a lack of voluntariness.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant's prior fault in losing capacity is a complete defence to automatism.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    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.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism is a complete defence to all crimes, including those of basic intent.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    In driving cases, automatism is applied very broadly and is often successful as a defence.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The prosecution must prove that the defendant was in a state of automatism beyond a reasonable doubt.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    D's prior fault can replace voluntariness at T2 in specific intent offences.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' can appeal the verdict.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Insanity requires proof of external factors, such as circumstances surrounding the offense.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The legal burden of proof is reversed when automatism is pleaded.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A disease of the mind is a medical concept.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Prior fault can establish reckonlessness in offences of basic intent.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who pleads insanity bears the burden of proving their sanity.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The M'Naughten rules have three elements that must be proven to establish insanity.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism can be found if the defendant's actions were influenced by a mental illness, even if they were still conscious.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The defence of automatism can be used to negate the mens rea of an offence, but not the actus reus.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism and insanity are defences that can be used interchangeably.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    If a defendant is found to have committed an offence while in a state of automatism, they will be found not guilty.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The court in R v Coley held that the defendant's conduct was voluntary, despite being irrational and influenced by heavy cannabis use.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism can be used as a defence for any type of offence, including offences of basic intent.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    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.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defect of reason must always be a result of an internal cause.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The M'Naughten rules apply only to offences of specific intent.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant can plead insanity if they are unable to reason due to external factors such as hypoglycaemia.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness but knows what they are doing is legally wrong cannot plead insanity.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The phrase 'disease of the mind' refers to a medical concept rather than a legal concept.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who is able to reason but is suffering from a mental illness can still plead insanity.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The M'Naughten rules require a defendant to show that they did not know what they were doing was morally wrong.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    Automatism and insanity are mutually exclusive defences.

    <p>True</p> Signup and view all the answers

    A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness and is unable to reason can plead automatism.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    The M'Naughten rules have been abolished in modern law.

    <p>False</p> Signup and view all the answers

    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

    Studying That Suits You

    Use AI to generate personalized quizzes and flashcards to suit your learning preferences.

    Quiz Team

    Description

    Test your knowledge on the automatism defence in criminal law, including its definition and application in cases like Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland.

    More Like This

    Criminal Law Basics Quiz
    40 questions
    Criminal Law Overview
    21 questions

    Criminal Law Overview

    MarvelousPascal avatar
    MarvelousPascal
    Criminal Law and Corrections Overview
    20 questions
    Use Quizgecko on...
    Browser
    Browser