Attorney General's Reference No 2 1992 (1993)
Bailey, R v (1983) CA
Bingham, R v (1991) CA
Bratty v AG Northern Ireland (1996)
Broome v Perkins (1987) QBD
Charlson, R v [1955] Barry J
Finegan v Heywood (2000) HCJ
Hardie (1984) CA
Hennessy,
R v (1989) CA
Hill v Baxter [1958] QBD
Lipman, R v (1970) CA
Quick, R v (1973) CA
Smith, R v (Sandie) [1982] CA
Sullivan, R v (1983) HL
T, R v [1990] Southan J Snaresbrook Crown Court
Watmore v Jenkins [1962] QBD
|
|
[Automatism - reckless
driving - total loss of control required – driving without awareness not
sufficient]
D drove his lorry for six
hours and hit a stationary vehicle on the hard shoulder, killing two
people.
He
claimed automatism because he was 'driving without awareness'.
Held:
automatism occurs when there is a total loss of voluntary control.
Impaired or reduced control is not sufficient. D had some control of the
lorry, he was able to steer and was partially aware of what was going on
the road ahead of him.
Not Guilty (but should
have been) |
|
 |
[Automatism -
self-induced - available for specific or basic intent in some
circumstances]
D seriously injured a rival in love with an iron bar. D, a diabetic,
visited his ex-girlfriend and her new partner. He took insulin and drank
some sugared water but he had nothing to eat. He assaulted the partner of
his ex-girlfriend. He said he hit him to teach him a lesson for
associating with the girl. D claimed he acted in a state of automatism
caused by hypoglycaemia. He did not complicate the issue with alcohol or
drugs.
Held:
Automatism, even if self-induced could provide a defence to a crime of
basic intent crime (unless caused by intoxication). What must be
considered is whether D, in view of his knowledge of the likely results of
his actions, was sufficiently reckless. It was not necessarily reckless
to fail to take food after a dose of insulin.
Guilty
although non-insane (self-induced) automatism, no injustice at trial. |
|
Bingham, R v (1991) CA |
[Automatism -
distinguished from insanity - the former can be caused by diabetes, the
latter by its treatment]
D a
diabetic was charged with theft of a can of "Coke" and sandwiches, worth
£1.16, at a time when he had £90 in his pocket. He had paid for one can of
Coke, He made "no comment" to questions. He was suffering from automatism
by way of hypoglycaemia and was unaware of his actions. The judge refused
to leave that defence to the jury.
Held:
Allowing the appeal. Hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia should be
distinguished.
The former being too much sugar in the blood, and the latter too little.
Hyperglycaemia might raise difficult problems about the M'Naghten rules
and verdicts of not guilty by reason of insanity.
Hypoglycaemia was caused by too much insulin, or by insufficient quality
or quantity of food to counter-balance the insulin.
That would provide a satisfactory defence to an alleged crime such as
theft, due to lack of mens rea.
Those simple facts would be plain to anyone who troubled to read
Quick (1973) and
Hennessy [1989].
Comment:
If automatism was caused by an "external factor," the verdict will be
simply not guilty, if by an "internal factor," not guilty by reason of
insanity. Diabetes is obviously an internal, factor; so if the diabetes
results in hyperglycaemia which causes automatism the defendant is
"insane" within the meaning of the M'Naghten Rules.
The
administration of insulin is an external factor and, if it results in
hypoglycaemia which causes automatism, the defendant is simply not guilty.
It is as if the automatism had been caused by an accidental blow on the
head.
It is obviously absurd to describe a diabetic as "insane" and to subject
him to indefinite detention. For proposals for the reform of the law see
the Law Commission's draft Criminal Code (Law Com. No. 177).
Not
Guilty |
|
|
[Automatism - epilepsy]
D strangled a girl with her stocking. He claimed that at the time he was
suffering from psychomotor epilepsy.
Held:
D is entitled to raise the defence of automatism if the jury rejects the
defence of insanity.
'No act is punishable
if it is done involuntarily and an involuntary act … means an act which is
done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a
reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not
conscious of what he is doing, such as an act done whilst suffering from
concussion or done whilst sleep-walking'.
An
act is not involuntary simply because the defendant does not remember it
or because he was unable to control an impulse to do it.
Lord Denning:
"Any mental disorder which has manifested itself in violence and is prone
to recur is a disease of the mind (p. 412)."
Psychomotor epilepsy would be insanity.
Guilty |
|
|
[General Defences –
Automatism - cerebral tumour]
D in a hypoglycaemic state drove home very erratically from work, hitting
another car at one point. Afterwards he could remember nothing about the
journey, but seeing the damage to his car, reported himself to the
police. Medical evidence suggested that it was possible for someone in
his state to complete a familiar journey without being conscious of doing
so, and that although his awareness of what was going on around him would
be imperfect, he would be able to react sufficiently to steer and operate
the car, even though not very well.
Held: since the accused was able to exercise some voluntary control
over his movements, he had not been acting in an entirely involuntary
manner,
and
therefore the defence
of automatism was not available.
Guilty |
|
|
[General Defences –
Automatism - cerebral tumour]
D, for no apparent reason, hit his ten-year-old son on the head with a
hammer and threw him into a river. There was evidence that D, an
otherwise good father suffered from a cerebral tumour which could have
caused the sudden violence.
Held: D did not know what he was doing, so that his mind was not in
control of his limbs.
(The question of insanity was apparently not raised).
Not guilty of sec 18 OAPA 1861 |
|
|
[Automatism - alcohol -
drink driving offences]
D drove with excess alcohol. He said he was suffering from non-insane
automatism as he had driven the car in a state of parasomnia.
Held:
the defence of automatism was not available where alcohol had induced F's
condition and where F knew from previous experience that his parasomnia
was preceded by the consumption of alcohol.
Guilty |
|
|
[Automatism due to non
prescribed soporific drugs can be used as a defence]
D took a Valium tablets to calm himself when the woman whose tablets they
were told him they would do him no harm him to leave their flat. D set
fire to a wardrobe
Held:
D's state of mind had to be considered. The self-administration of a
sedative or soporific drug, could negative mens rea unlike self-induced
intoxication by alcohol or dangerous drugs.
If by
taking the drug a defendant could not appreciate the risks to property and
persons from his actions, the jury should consider whether the taking of
the drug was itself reckless
Not guilty |
|
|
[Automatism – stress,
anxiety and depression not external factors that can be used to found
defence]
D took a motorcar without consent whilst disqualified. He argued that
hyperglycaemia was caused by failure to take insulin, which in turn was
caused by stress and depression, which Lord
Held:
Lane said were not external factors.
Hennessy’s hyperglycaemia was triggered by an internal factor (his
diabetes))
'In our judgment,
stress, anxiety and depression can no doubt be the result of the operation
of external factors, but they are not, it seems to us, in themselves
separately or together external factors of the kind capable in law of
causing or contributing to a state of automatism.'
The Court of Appeal pointed out that they were prone to recur and lacked
the feature of novelty or accident. The kind of external factors the law
required would be something like a blow to the head, or an anaesthetic.’
Guilty |
|
|
[General Defences -
Automatism]
D was behind the wheel when his car collided with another; at his trial on
a charge of dangerous driving, he claimed he had been overcome by an
unknown illness and had been unconscious.
Held:
Some credible evidence must support a claim of sudden illness or
concussion, they said, usually going beyond D's mere assertion, but (Lord
Goddard CJ dissenting) the burden of proof thereafter is on the
prosecution to show that the act was a voluntary one.
Lord Goddard, quoting Humphreys J in Kay v Butterworth 1945 resurrected
the now famous and hypothetical ‘Swarm of Bees’.
Guilty |
|
|
[General Defences -
Automatism]
D and his girlfriend V each took a quantity of LSD (a hallucinatory
drug). During his "trip", D imagined he was being attacked by snakes at
the centre of the earth and had to defend himself; in doing so, he
actually killed V by cramming eight inches of sheet down her throat.
Held:
He was acquitted of murder because the jury were not sure that he had the
necessary intention, being intoxicated.
Guilty
of manslaughter |
|
|
[Automatism - an
external factor]
D, a nurse, assaulted a patient. He was a diabetic, had taken insulin and
not eaten sufficient food. He drank whisky and rum he could not remember
the assault. He pleaded automatism.
Held:
D was suffering from automatism, which is a mental abnormality caused by
an external factor. He was not suffering from insanity caused by
hypoglycaemia (low sugar in the blood) by taking insulin prescribed by his
doctor. [Distinguished from hyperglycaemia
high blood sugar occurring naturally, which would be insanity]
Lawton LJ:
'a self-induced
incapacity will not excuse ... nor will one which could have been
reasonably foreseen as a result of either doing or omitting to do
something, for example, taking alcohol against medical advice after using
certain prescribed drugs or failing to have regular meals while taking
insulin.'
Not guilty |
|
|
[Automatism – PMT not
automatism]
D threatened to kill and carried an offensive weapon. She was already on
probation for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility, and
brought evidence to show a history of psychological disturbance and
violent behaviour clearly associated with her menstrual cycle.
Held:
PMT could not provide a defence of automatism.
Guilty
a probation order (now Community Punishment Order) with a condition D
undergo a course of drug treatment. |
|
|
[Epilepsy is insanity,
not automatism]
D kicked neighbour in the head and body while having epileptic fit.
Held:
Epilepsy is insanity, (not automatism) it affects the mind, not an
external cause such as drugs or alcohol.
Guilty |
|
|
[Automatism – post
traumatic stress disorder arising from rape is an external factor]
D took part in a robbery with others. When arrested she could remember
very little, she had been raped a few days earlier. A psychiatrist
diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder, and suggested she had not at the
time of the robbery been acting with her conscious mind.
Held: The judge said there was a question of sane automatism to go
to the jury.
Verdict not reported. |
|
|
[Automatism - reckless
driving - total loss of control required – driving without awareness not
sufficient]
D drove dangerously while suffering progressive hypoglycaemia gradually
lost consciousness over the course of a five-mile drive.
Held:
Winn J said a state of automatism is no more than a modern catchphrase,
which the courts have not accepted as connoting any wider or looser
concept than involuntary movement of the body or limbs. Only when the
driver is not really driving at all is the defence of automatism available
to him.
Guilty |
|
