hi everyone welcome to part two of our general defences tutorials in this tutorial it is more of a lengthy one I'm afraid I'm going to be looking at this is the counterpart to insanity otherwise known as non insane automatisms just wonder if you can think about what the term automatisms means if you don't the word if you took ism off the end you'll think about automatic acting as an automaton anything where I don't have control over your actions and the definition of ultimate ism was from a leading case 96.3 brat Attorney General for Northern Ireland and it was Lord Denning that sat on this case this is what he said an act which is done by the muscles without any control of the mind as a reflex action or 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 sleepwalking so you see initially sleepwalking would certainly terminus coming under or being within the automatisms defense but what does this tell us about the statement ISM is essentially the examples that are given by Lord Denning here are things that are perhaps temporary or external or caused by external factors and that's what water it is amiss about is about the person who commits a crime involuntarily as a result of external factors so potential involuntary actions could include these in an attack by a swarm of bees or of a similar act under anesthetic or a drug or even alcohol even an intoxication or suffering from psychological trauma potentially depending on how long lasting it is and for that reason ultimate is intends to be raised in relation to driving offenses and many other cases we'll look at have arisen out of those particular offenses Hill and Baxter is really key based in this area this involved a defendant who fell asleep at the wheel and hit another car and had no recollection of the incidents this was a magistrate's case many low-level driving offences our summary only and he was acquitted of dangerous driving the case did go up to appeal and was heard by Lord Goddard in the Court of Appeal who upheld the acquittal and he said a person should not be made liable who through no fault of his own becomes unconscious whilst driving and he famously gave examples of where automatisms would apply one of them being attacked by a swarm of bees now fallen asleep at the wheel is now really seem to be something that is a fault too or by defendant as there are of course it had rules about how long you should be driving before having a rest break it's those type of incidences so what are the requirements of the defense of automatism so again as I try to put them into three the Act must have been caused by an involuntary reaction and this involuntary action must render the defendant to have no retention of controls they must have a complete loss of control voluntary means a complete loss of control caused by an external factor so it must not be due to a disease of the mind so it's complete opposite insanity here looking at an external cause and the defendant must not be must not have induced themselves into that they must blame best so we're now gonna have a look at these details so what do we mean by an involuntary reaction as I said it means we must have had complete lots of role any retention of control result and failing you've got the face of is't from 1978 a driving case so I see it was involved in a road accident after which he drove off in his van so erratically he's pursued him in a chase through the fields he would tire through dangerous driving and argued after the accident that he had entered the state of automatisms as a result my kept trick damage caused by the road accident so have a think about whether you believe the first stage of the Testament satisfied hopefully it'd be no surprise to know that the courts weren't satisfied he clearly hadn't completely lost control because he was able to drive in his van erratically albeit but he was able to be pursued in a case so therefore that indicates that there was some retention of control there so the cause must not be due to a disease of the mind it has to be external and there's quite a big debate around as I said it talked about a bit in part one of these tutorials about the condition of diabetes though certainly with diabetes there are instances where you could suffer from an effect of diabetes but that is or that has been caused by Bernal sources instead of internal when we learnt about insanity we looked at the case of Hennessy where Hennessy was diabetic and and he was suffering from hyperglycemia which hopefully you remember is high blood sugar levels usually caused by a failure to take into the insulin that you need to regulate blood sugar levels this is a natural effect of the diabetes we can contrast it with the case of quick which is a successful case of automatism where the defendant also suffered from diabetes but suffered hypoglycemia instead in other words low blood sugar levels so that and this is an example of an external factor deeming to be ultimate ISM and just remember go back to the effect of these defenses if you're deemed to be insane then you're almost inevitably going to be given at least the treatment order in the community or hospitalization whereas if you're successful on in automatisms you are given a complete acquittal no treatment and you are able to walk away so quick was the nurse who insulted a patient he was diabetic had taken insulin but hadn't eaten enough food and also combined with alcohol did not make a good cocktail he couldn't remember the assault because he went into the state of low blood sugar that hypo state so this was deemed to be an outside source too much insulin so the court actually said that quit was suffering from ultimate is Imran than insanity his state was not caused by natural effects of the disease for example if he had taken his insulin or too much as in the case of Hennessey and what the court said was now functioning of the mind caused by the effect of some external factors such as violence drugs including alcohol anesthetic or hypnosis cannot be fairly said to be due to a disease of the mind though quick was able to gain a full acquittal whereas Hennessy who had also suffered from symptoms of diabetes at the time of his crime was labeled insane which does actually cause a lot of problems for many academics and what they're essentially doing is taking the circumstances deciding whether they are external so in this instance you've got drinking of alcohol and saying well these have not caused natural effects of diabetes even though with quick he did suffer from the hypoglycemic State which is an effect of diabetes itself so it's you know you're right if you're confused it is confusing but the courts are throwing that distinction of the blood sugar levels so just give you a little summary slide on the position with diabetes if a defendant has or is suffering from hypo so low blood sugar usually caused by taking too much insulin or failing to eat and of course other factors like alcohol then that will be finding water Matt ISM but if a defendant is suffering from hyper which is high blood sugar caused by a failure to take adequate insulin and they begin to be insane and of course the impact is that one is labeled is insane the other walks away scot-free and you might think that this is essentially unfair I mean the court to drawing that distinction between these two types of diabetes not medical experts lead to injustice so have a look at this before we move on this previous OCR scenario and see whether you think or what you think the defendant need would be able to rely on insanity ultimate ISM so Rashid suffers from diabetes he had previously had blackouts and has to take it in twice a day he fails to take his into him for a whole day and during the evening whilst driving he suffers from a blackout Rashid loses control of the car which mounts the pavement and hits the Reza pedestrian Larissa dies immediately so hopefully you identify that this would probably be a charge of manslaughter what defense is he going to be raising here and with 20 you think be appropriate and hopefully you've identified that list more likely be insanity based failure to take insulin he would likely be either detained or given treatment water okay let's look at other examples and there are some slides after this that Bo through these cases in a bit more detail do you love the face of Willy which is an unreported case it went the magistrate's call that people do teach and talk about because it was reported in the media so much sneezing the case of Hardy who was under the effect of soporific drugs and of committing the crime Soper if ik means and those drugs that are usually calming rather than taken to increase or elevate your mood and speed so in this case Hadi took valium which has led to happy harming but actually an opposite effect in the case of our against T cases of extreme stress so that earn all trauma from an incident so powerful at express order PTSD and of course the case of parts sleepwalking but there are cases that we will that equally although later do appear to be following persuaded by this okay so have a read of bit case and answer the questions and we will go through these in class a case of Willie and then you've got the cases of Hardy and RVT now Hardy was successful because the court said that tablets had the opposite effect so this was an external factor RVT the defendant in this she was actually unsuccessful but the reason why it's called a success is because God allowed the jury to consider the issue of automatism basis that the PTSD was caused by an external factors and and who was raped prior to committing a robbery and the evidence in the trial was that when she committed the robbery she was in a trance-like state so she wasn't really conscious but of course we go back to the first day each test they will did she still retain some control if you're able to commit a property events you can usually are you usually able to retain or them have sunk all of your actions not a reflexive if you like or a convulsion which easily could cause a non-fatal offence against a person or even a fatal events property offenses usually require some kind of thought and process and controlled actions so you can see why the jury convicted her of the robbery nevertheless on appeal it was held that Dutch was brides to allow the jury to consider it which causes here is prerogative whether they agree or not eat walking of course is a really controversial area so I'd asked you through the insanity tutorial to just have a look at that article about the man who was given the defense of insanity for sexsomnia so having sex with the victim whilst asleep but there are other similar reported cases that have been successful with automatisms since then based on sleepwalking so you've got builtin who was acquitted of three rates while sleepwalking and then you've got a cot two years later which was involved an RAF serviceman who again was acquitted of having sex with somebody whilst asleep at a party both of those being successful an automatism so we do seem to be following the line certainly that was some so clearly put out there by parks in the Canadian case of considering sleepwalking and even acts like rape whilst sleepwalking as well now there is of course the case of burgess the man who assaulted his girlfriend losslessly who was labeled insane and you've also got another case to compare with called lo which involved a man who beat his father to death is elderly father and who ended up with ninety injuries if I in this case online there'll be some articles about it now the headline was that he was acquitted but he was beamed a insane not guilty by reason of insanity the dirt had recognized that during the the murder by which Lowe had no recollection whoever himself have been sleepwalking he was acting as an automatons the judge did actually say that but the finding was insanity because the judge decided that he needed a hospital order and that he see the contrast between insanity and automatisms with one you need treatment the other you had been not to ollo was subject to a period of time in hospital I believe he he only spent a number of months before he was released but what these cases particularly built and and low have done is they've kind of raised the profile of sleepwalking as a potential defense in the courts there is call for sleepwalking be reformed and to be separate infinity and ultimate ISM and I just wonder where you say on whether you think ----builtin an air cop were right to be fully acquitted of rape and not leave any treatment or whether you think actually the line off if you are if you commit a serious offense legal king you should be labeled as insane because you do need treatment it's an interesting debate really so there is the five-minute YouTube clip where the expert talk about the cases parks the Canadian case which was of murder and attempted murder we have watched that in class but do feel free to users link and watch it again and what I would like you to do is to write a paragraph of evaluation if you like discussing the courts approach the walking and sex song your in particular and use these cases to do that and that would be really important adduced towards an essay sleepwalking is a really controversial area and what on the next slide is a sheet to help you to research these later cases you've got low built in a neck or if you can research these and make sure that you know what the facts are the income was remember the ratio is the reason for the decision the ratio beats addendum going on to the third part of the test the defendant must be blameless so the general rule is that the defense of automatism will not apply to defendants who knowingly place themselves in a state assumes must be blameless cannot be self induced cause if they put themselves into a state of intoxication and the defense of intoxication may apply instead you will look at all three of these tutorials also look at is what the prime is itself is even if you've put yourself the state of automatism so therefore on the face of it prime a facie the defense won't be available if the offense you've committed is one of the specific intent and you may not be able to form the mens rare anyway so you may actually end up having defense to do the crime even though you aren't blameless so remember we have this general rule that the defense won't apply to somebody who induces themselves into the state ultimately we also have to be mindful of the requirement when committing a crime that you must have been able to form the men it's rare though even if you're not blameless but you can't form the mens rea you may still by law he entitled to a partial defense there are some rules around this the course tag arise criminal offenses in to those of specific intent where there are crimes that the mens rea is specific to that crime or basic intent crimes where the mentor is much wider and can includes polute simply the realizing of a risk of committing a crime the rep like let's have a look at how we categorize crimes what I will say is these rules are the same for intoxication if you are if you decide to become intoxicated so you're not entirely blameless which could be in blameless could be for example will drink a spike so let's say you decide to become drunk then the court have to look at these or use these rules though and say well what crime have you committed and could you despite being not blameless have formed the mens rea anyway so the crimes are specific intent mean intention or specific and is required so we've got the murder where there must be intent to kill or cause serious harm with sex in a section 18 GPA or wounding where we have intent to coerce that serious harm the theft we've got intent to permanently deprive somebody of the property and dishonesty and the same a burglary and robbery of course and then you've got attempted crimes the intent to commit that specific crime so if you've become intoxicated or in an ultimate automatic state and you are you've put yourself in that state but you cannot form the mens rea for this one of these specific offenses then you made they'll have a defense but if you commit a basic intent crime while still if they and you could by law be deemed to be reckless so you could still be guilty it really depends on what crime you commit and the type of crimes that come under this and it would conclude recklessness or manslaughter section 20 grievous bodily harm or wounding an assault battery and of course eh-eh if that's the level injury so where do those rules come from you come from the case of Bailey in 1980 three this involved a diabetic who failed to eat enough after taking in Flint to control his diabetes became aggressive and hits buddy over the head with an iron bar his state was deemed to be self induced but himself into that state by failing to eat Court of Appeal held that self induced ultimate ISM can only be considered where the offense is on specific intent the he was charged with section 18 green bodily harm if you go back to a table that is a specific intent crime so despite putting himself in that state if as a result of that state he couldn't form the mens rea for section 18 which is the intent to cause that serious harm he would not be guilty of it but actually what the courts can do is they can then find you guilty of the alternative basic crime instead and say well Bailey can't form the intention to cause serious harm but he can form the mens rea for the alternative basic crime which is sex 20 so he's at least reckless to causing serious harm but in actual fact on the facts here he was guilty not enough evidence to prove he was actually in that state prison anyway that's how right and I hope that they make sense to you I have a look at these three short scenarios and see whether the defendants here can rely on automatisms a pause plays from an incomplete base number one hopefully you've concluded the loop would be unsuccessful although he is concussed which would be an external factor caused by the branch falling from the tree and hitting him on the head he seems to have still some retention of control so the tests first thing to the test would fail for the second scenario this appears to be similar to the case of Hardy so Lauren would probably be successful you wouldn't expect leaping pills to have the opposite effect of committing criminal damage whilst in that state so certainly basically here Birdwell in terms of the diabetic would depend on what the blood sugar levels is if it was high blood sugar then this would probably not be successful an ultimate ISM but insanity instead if it was low blood sugar then this would be automatisms okay and the effects of raising automatisms is that if you're successful and you are completely blameless you will be given a complete defense no treatment no liability whatsoever you walk away but if of course you're deemed to not be completely blameless and you've engaged yourself into that state you if you're not guilty of the specific crime you might be guilty of an alternative basic you're not guilty of murder because you can't form the intentions hilum called serious harm for example you would be guilty of manslaughter instead so for the rules from Bailey to operate it may be a partial defense for you instead of a full defense but of course if there's no partial defense available if there's no alternative basic I am available to charge you with then you might have a full defense regardless okay so what we have over the next joining slides are some scenarios so you've got here two scenarios asking you to advise on liability for murder and any defenses usually this type of question would ask you or require you to consider these specific offenses murder which are limited responsibility a lot of well here I would like you to consider insanity in automatisms so I would say you were tasked to do completely scenario at some point so do police take some time and have a look at it watch what it's tutorial and what I'd like you to do if you pause it's just two minute task identifying the main differences between the two defenses then what we're gonna do for the final part of this tutorial I'm just gonna take you through some of the evaluation points these defenses and we can imagine these defenses do give rise to a lot of criticism it's a really popular examinable area there's a lot to say and actually for 25 mark essay for OCR or AQA you really would have to be quite concise in what you're saying you wouldn't be able to cover all of it so my advice is always would be to pick four or at least four points make sure you discuss those all points in detail and of course remember that an examiner might just ask you about insanity or autism so for that reason I covered them and separately the evaluation of insanity this takes me back to what I've spoken to you in class about if you raise a defense the burden of proof almost shifts if you like duplicate the prosecution the defendant to bring evidence to show that they were acting in that particular way so if you're raising insanity or whoever's raising insanity or indeed if you're raising automated them you have to bring evidence to the table to show that you were acting in that way and critics say that that does undermine the motion of innocent until proven guilty and can affect your right to a fair trial under article 6 of the European conventional human rights and just something to know there and make sure you add articles it easily at the end of that point plays of course insanity relies on legal terminology so this is the legal definition the idea of disease of a mind it's a legal term rather than a medical one and certainly the test is outdated 1843 you know this is older than the offenses against the person's acts a certainly needs updating and reforming and the Law Commission have looked at this the rules can be deemed to be too broad to the classification of diabetes epilepsy sleepwalking as being a danger to the public he's not just initially borderline offensive but also inaccurate but then in contrast the rules could be deemed to be too narrow so if you think about the third part of the test the defense could rule out those who are medically insane if they understand or they know the nature and quality of their act or that it is legally wrong but there may still be unable to stop themselves from committing it your typical serial killers you know have urges if you think about burn and sexual psychopath you couldn't resist kidnapping torturing and killing women under these rules have potentially not be deemed to be insane because he would understand what he's doing he would know it's legally wrong but he's actually unable to stop himself and committing it which can cause some problems of an imbecile you wouldn't want somebody like Byrne to go to a normal prison you would want him to go to a secure treatment facility and although of course then that document can extend to the social psychology side of whether you can treat somebody all that type of condition whether somebody can ever be and cured if you like what I would say that I haven't put on here is something that's really positive about the defense of insanity or the relaxing or if you said a widening off the treatment orders since 1991 and certainly in the DVC a of 2004 you've got the ability of the court now not to just detain somebody in a secure unit but also to give them treatment orders which shows more of an emphasis of reform and rehabilitation rather than punishment and protection so you could say that's a positive thing as well and make a note of that the evaluation of automatisms through a couple of points here so the distinctions between insanity and automatisms can be confusing and of course the evidential burden rests on the defense to prove that they were innovative them at the time and you could argue the requirement to have a complete lots of control can be really high high threshold tests and almost impossible to to evidence and proof and of course you've got your distinctions in conditions when diabetes where a person with high blood sugar levels may be considered insane in contrast to a person with low blood sugar levels who would be considered to be not insane which causes a lot of controversy inconsistency with disassociative states so t who suffered from post-traumatic disorder was unsuccessful in court you've got bird sleep McCain and of course sleepwalking we have a number of cases where defendants were successful but then bases where defendants would seem to be insane which does seem to be inconsistent t-bob Burgess Lowe a cotton Milton - all contrast there and then of course part where the Canadian courts were very clear that this was automatisms and of course the problem with automatisms is the these defendants who are successful don't receive any medical treatment that they may need it somebody like quick clearly needs some kind of treatment order and helped regulate their diabetes and to be taught to manager Venice ultimately is restricted as it results in a complete equipment port can and they would side with the insanity because it's a safer way to deal with the defendant who has a condition but also a way of protecting the public it's going to be and the forefront of the courts mind it's one of the main aims of sentencing under section 142 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 if you remember proposals for reform of course for level 4 answers we're always wanting to give some information in an essay about reform and this pose nicely at the end when we're concluding that these defenses are out of date and need reforming they're not fit for modern times or purposes the Law Commission looks at its area most recently in 2013 in a report called criminal liability insanity and automatisms so they've suggested a number of things that I've simply summarized here but you could always go on to the Law Commission WK website and have a little more detail so they've suggested a lining of the medical and legal terms reviewing the decisions of Quicken Hennessy although fiction's or the the outcome rather for them wouldn't change reviewing why the courts made those decisions would help to inform future cases reviewing the area of sleepwalk a potential fully aligning with the Canadian perspective changing arbitrary and outdated terminology removing a labeling and a statement of somebody being beamed fee insane as of course that's why defendants will first and foremost raise diminished responsibility now for murder they'd rather raised that than insanity bollocks automatism completely and replace it with a newly worthy defense triggered by a recognized medical condition so very similar to the updated working that we see so maybe abolish insanity in automatisms ever maybe treatment orders okay so final slide here so for your exam skills you need to be able to describe these areas of law please summarize the tests use relevant case law and of course we need to apply law to scenarios for assessment objective a you may also be given an evaluative question these are common if you look back through the exam papers you will see that these new crop up quite often typically you could be discover whether the rules governing insanity and or autism are in a satisfactory condition in might than they are in need of reform on both 25 bars okay I hope you found it useful and some parts have been quite heavy going I know but really interesting defenses and if you have any questions please do ask me thank you very much