Revision session on AUTOMATISM!!!
- 1. Revision Session on Automatism! 10.02.2012
- 2. Recap automatism Definition? An act done by the muscles without any control by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action. It can also be an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing. Examples?
- 3. 2 types of automatism • Also known as? Insane Automatism • Give examples of external factors such can Non-insane raise defence for this? Automatism
- 4. ? FACTS: D drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car. He was charged with dangerous driving but acquitted by the magistrates who accepted that he remembered nothing from some distance before reaching the halt sign. HELD: The Divisional Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and remitted the case back to the magistrates, with a direction to convict as there was no evidence to support a defence of automatism!
- 5. Facts? D was raped. Three days later she took part in a robbery and assault. She claimed that at the time she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of the rape and that she had acted in a dream like state. Held: Accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which may cause automatism.
- 6. FACTS: : D was a lorry driver, who after driving for several hours drove along the hard shoulder of a motorway for about half a mile. He hit a broken down car which was stationery on the hard shoulder, killing two people. He said that e was suffering from the condition ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver into a trance-like state. The jury acquitted him. HELD: The A-G referred the point of law to the CA who ruled that because this condition only causes partial loss of control, it did not amount to automatism.
- 7. ? FACTS: D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin to control the diabetes. He became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an iron bar. HELD: The trial judge ruled that the defence of automatism was not available. Bailey appealed. The CA upheld D’s conviction as there was insufficient evidence in the case to raise the defence of automatism.
- 8. ? FACTS: D was depressed because his girlfriend had told him to move out of their flat. He took some valium tablets which had been prescribed for his former girlfriend. She encouraged him to take the tablets, stating it would calm him down. He then set fire to a wardrobe in the flat. He said he did not know what he was doing because of the valium. HELD: The trial judge directed the jury to ignore the effect of the tablets and he was convicted of arson. The CA quashed his conviction as D had taken the drug to calm him down. This is the normal effect of Valium. So D had not been reckless and the defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury.
- 9. What were the 3 rules from Bailey? 1. There is a difference in the way the defence applies to SPECIFIC intent and BASIC intent. 2. Main rule that D cannot use S.I.A if he has bought the automatic state by being RECKLESS. 3. Where the defendant does not know that his actions are likely to cause a S.I state in which he may commit an offence – he can raise defence.