Topic 9 AutomatismInsanity Topic 9 Automatism

Topic 9 Automatism Introduction The basis of this defence is the defendant’s inability to control his or her actions. It has long been accepted that a defendant will only face criminal liability for his or her actions if they were performed voluntarily. With the defence of automatism, a defendant claims that the actus reus was involuntary and argues that therefore he or she should not be convicted of the offence. Since the defendant is denying the actus reus, automatism may be used as a defence to all crimes, including those classed as strict liability offences.

Topic 9 Automatism Elements In order to rely on automatism, the defendant must show that there was a complete loss of voluntary control. The total loss of control must be due to an external factor. This is the key difference between insanity and automatism. The courts have given examples of what constitutes an external factor. These include a blow to the head, being stung by a bee, being given anaesthetic, a reflex action, being hypnotised and suffering from severe shock or post- traumatic stress disorder.

Topic 9 Automatism Self-induced automatism If the automatism was caused by voluntary consumption of drugs or alcohol, the defendant cannot rely on this defence and will be subject to the rules of intoxication instead. If the defendant’s automatism is caused by something other than alcohol or drugs, he or she may be able to use the defence, although this is dependent upon on whether he or she knew there was a risk of getting into such a condition.

Topic 9 Automatism Burden and standard of proof If the defendant seeks to rely on automatism, he or she must raise the defence and will usually require medical evidence in order to do so. Once the defence has been raised, it is for the prosecution to disprove.

Topic 9 Automatism Effect Automatism acts as a complete defence, and a successful plea means that the defendant will be found not guilty.

Topic 9 Automatism Evaluation (1) Leads to irrational and unfair results The courts have tried to restrict the availability of automatism because it results in a complete acquittal, despite the fact that the defendant has committed what would otherwise be a crime. By making it as hard as possible to rely on the defence, the courts hope that only genuine automatons can rely on it. This is understandable but can have harsh results.

Topic 9 Automatism Evaluation (2) Leads to irrational and unfair results The distinctions made between internal and external factors have been criticised in cases such as Quick and Hennessy. Here, both defendants suffered from diabetes but only one of them could rely on automatism. The main justification behind the distinction is that an internal factor is more likely to reoccur than an external one, and thus the public is more likely to be at risk from a defendant with such a condition. Critics argue that this may be true if someone is suffering from mental illness and attacks someone – he or she may be more likely to do it again than someone who attacks the victim after a knock to the head. However, in the diabetic cases, both were suffering from the same disease so the distinction is illogical.

Topic 9 Automatism Reform (1) Extending automatism It has been suggested that the defence should be extended to cover all cases that can be controlled by drugs or eating and drinking, e.g. epilepsy and diabetes. This would go some way to reducing the illogical distinctions often made. The Law Commission’s Criminal Code Bill also proposes the inclusion of sleepwalking under the defence. This would change the ruling in Burgess, where the condition was classed as insanity, and follows the Canadian case of Parks. In this case, a defendant, who drove several miles to the home of his in-laws and murdered his mother-in-law while sleepwalking, successfully relied on automatism and was acquitted.

Topic 9 Automatism Reform (2) Abolishing internal and external factors Some have suggested going a stage further and abolishing the notion of internal and external factors. Before this could be done, however, the law on insanity would need to be updated.