⚖️

Understanding Non-Insane Automatism in Law

Apr 14, 2025

General Defenses: Automatism

Introduction

  • Focus on "non-insane automatism," counterpart to insanity.
  • Automatism: Acting without control over actions.
    • Definition: Acts done by muscles without mind control or unconscious acts (e.g., concussion, sleepwalking).
    • Typically involves temporary or external causes leading to involuntary actions.

Key Cases

Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland

  • Leading case on automatism.

Hill and Baxter

  • Defendant fell asleep at the wheel.
  • Acquittal upheld by Lord Goddard due to unconsciousness.
  • Examples given: attacked by bees, anesthesia.

R v. Quick and R v. Hennessy

  • Quick: Automatism due to external factors (e.g., insulin causing hypoglycemia).
  • Hennessy: Insanity due to internal factors (e.g., lack of insulin causing hyperglycemia).

Requirements of Automatism

  1. Involuntary action leading to complete loss of control.
  2. External cause (not due to a disease of the mind).
  3. Must not be self-induced (e.g., intoxication).

Examples and Applications

  • Scenarios like sleepwalking, stress-induced states (e.g., PTSD).
  • R v. T: PTSD considered as an external factor.
  • Burgess vs. Lowe: Sleepwalking debated between insanity and automatism.

Legal Implications

  • Automatism leads to complete acquittal.
  • Contrast with insanity which results in treatment orders.

Challenges and Criticisms

  • Confusion between insanity and automatism.
  • Requirement of complete loss of control is a high bar.
  • Controversy over diabetes cases: high vs. low blood sugar.
  • Potential injustice due to legal vs. medical terminologies.

Reform Proposals

  • Align medical and legal definitions.
  • Review decisions, like Quick and Hennessy.
  • Address inconsistent sleepwalking verdicts.
  • Abolish outdated terminology.
  • Integrate automatism into more modern legal frameworks.

Exam Preparation

  • Be able to describe tests, apply laws using case laws.
  • Prepare for evaluative questions on the current state and need for reform of these defenses.
  • Focus on case distinctions and recognizing applicable defenses.

Full transcript