Podcast
Questions and Answers
What is the primary focus of the defence of automatism?
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?
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?
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?
What is the effect of the defence of automatism if the defendant is successful?
What is the significance of the Broome v Perkins case in the context of automatism?
What is the significance of the Broome v Perkins case in the context of automatism?
What is the implication of the presumption of voluntariness in the criminal law?
What is the implication of the presumption of voluntariness in the criminal law?
What is the primary requirement for establishing automatism in a legal context?
What is the primary requirement for establishing automatism in a legal context?
In the case of AG's Reference (No 2 of 1992), what was the condition of the lorry driver?
In the case of AG's Reference (No 2 of 1992), what was the condition of the lorry driver?
What is the consequence of prior fault in establishing automatism?
What is the consequence of prior fault in establishing automatism?
What was the outcome of the court's decision in R v Coley?
What was the outcome of the court's decision in R v Coley?
What are the three elements required to find liability via automatism?
What are the three elements required to find liability via automatism?
What is the key difference between automatism and intoxication in terms of prior fault?
What is the key difference between automatism and intoxication in terms of prior fault?
What is the key aspect of the 'disease of the mind' concept?
What is the key aspect of the 'disease of the mind' concept?
In R v Kemp, what was the court's ruling?
In R v Kemp, what was the court's ruling?
What is required for a defect of reason?
What is required for a defect of reason?
In R v Clarke, what was the court's ruling?
In R v Clarke, what was the court's ruling?
What is the key aspect of the 'lack of responsibility' element?
What is the key aspect of the 'lack of responsibility' element?
In R v Windle, what was the court's ruling?
In R v Windle, what was the court's ruling?
What is the key distinction in R v Quick and R v Hennessy?
What is the key distinction in R v Quick and R v Hennessy?
In R v Keal, what was the court's ruling?
In R v Keal, what was the court's ruling?
What is the key test for the 'disease of the mind' concept?
What is the key test for the 'disease of the mind' concept?
What is the relationship between the 'disease of the mind' and the 'defect of reason' concepts?
What is the relationship between the 'disease of the mind' and the 'defect of reason' concepts?
What is the key distinction between intoxication and offences of basic intent?
What is the key distinction between intoxication and offences of basic intent?
What is the effect of prior fault in offences of basic intent?
What is the effect of prior fault in offences of basic intent?
What is the significance of R v Bailey in the context of prior fault?
What is the significance of R v Bailey in the context of prior fault?
What is the effect of pleading insanity as a defence?
What is the effect of pleading insanity as a defence?
What are the three options available to the court when a defendant is found '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'?
What is the key difference between insanity and automatism?
What is the key difference between insanity and automatism?
What is the burden of proof when insanity is pleaded?
What is the burden of proof when insanity is pleaded?
What is the source of the M'Naughten rules?
What is the source of the M'Naughten rules?
What is the effect of the M'Naughten rules?
What is the effect of the M'Naughten rules?
How many elements does the M'Naughten rule have?
How many elements does the M'Naughten rule have?
In the context of automatism, a defendant's erratic or rational voluntariness is considered a lack of voluntariness.
In the context of automatism, a defendant's erratic or rational voluntariness is considered a lack of voluntariness.
A defendant's prior fault in losing capacity is a complete defence to automatism.
A defendant's prior fault in losing capacity is a complete defence to automatism.
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.
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.
Automatism is a complete defence to all crimes, including those of basic intent.
Automatism is a complete defence to all crimes, including those of basic intent.
In driving cases, automatism is applied very broadly and is often successful as a defence.
In driving cases, automatism is applied very broadly and is often successful as a defence.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant was in a state of automatism beyond a reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must prove that the defendant was in a state of automatism beyond a reasonable doubt.
D's prior fault can replace voluntariness at T2 in specific intent offences.
D's prior fault can replace voluntariness at T2 in specific intent offences.
A defendant found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' can appeal the verdict.
A defendant found 'not guilty by reason of insanity' can appeal the verdict.
Automatism leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
Automatism leads to a special verdict of 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.
Insanity requires proof of external factors, such as circumstances surrounding the offense.
Insanity requires proof of external factors, such as circumstances surrounding the offense.
The legal burden of proof is reversed when automatism is pleaded.
The legal burden of proof is reversed when automatism is pleaded.
A disease of the mind is a medical concept.
A disease of the mind is a medical concept.
Prior fault can establish reckonlessness in offences of basic intent.
Prior fault can establish reckonlessness in offences of basic intent.
A defendant who pleads insanity bears the burden of proving their sanity.
A defendant who pleads insanity bears the burden of proving their sanity.
The M'Naughten rules have three elements that must be proven to establish insanity.
The M'Naughten rules have three elements that must be proven to establish insanity.
Automatism can be found if the defendant's actions were influenced by a mental illness, even if they were still conscious.
Automatism can be found if the defendant's actions were influenced by a mental illness, even if they were still conscious.
The defence of automatism can be used to negate the mens rea of an offence, but not the actus reus.
The defence of automatism can be used to negate the mens rea of an offence, but not the actus reus.
Automatism and insanity are defences that can be used interchangeably.
Automatism and insanity are defences that can be used interchangeably.
If a defendant is found to have committed an offence while in a state of automatism, they will be found not guilty.
If a defendant is found to have committed an offence while in a state of automatism, they will be found not guilty.
The court in R v Coley held that the defendant's conduct was voluntary, despite being irrational and influenced by heavy cannabis use.
The court in R v Coley held that the defendant's conduct was voluntary, despite being irrational and influenced by heavy cannabis use.
Automatism can be used as a defence for any type of offence, including offences of basic intent.
Automatism can be used as a defence for any type of offence, including offences of basic intent.
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.
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.
A defect of reason must always be a result of an internal cause.
A defect of reason must always be a result of an internal cause.
The M'Naughten rules apply only to offences of specific intent.
The M'Naughten rules apply only to offences of specific intent.
A defendant can plead insanity if they are unable to reason due to external factors such as hypoglycaemia.
A defendant can plead insanity if they are unable to reason due to external factors such as hypoglycaemia.
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness but knows what they are doing is legally wrong cannot plead insanity.
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness but knows what they are doing is legally wrong cannot plead insanity.
The phrase 'disease of the mind' refers to a medical concept rather than a legal concept.
The phrase 'disease of the mind' refers to a medical concept rather than a legal concept.
A defendant who is able to reason but is suffering from a mental illness can still plead insanity.
A defendant who is able to reason but is suffering from a mental illness can still plead insanity.
The M'Naughten rules require a defendant to show that they did not know what they were doing was morally wrong.
The M'Naughten rules require a defendant to show that they did not know what they were doing was morally wrong.
Automatism and insanity are mutually exclusive defences.
Automatism and insanity are mutually exclusive defences.
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness and is unable to reason can plead automatism.
A defendant who is suffering from a mental illness and is unable to reason can plead automatism.
The M'Naughten rules have been abolished in modern law.
The M'Naughten rules have been abolished in modern law.
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.
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.
