Automatism
Defence where D lacks voluntary control and/or mental capacity at the time of the crime
Automatism provides a full defence
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable
doubt, but there is a burden on the defence to at least produce evidence of automatism –
Hill v Baxter
Automatism must have an external cause
Definition: ‘an act which is done… without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex
or a convulsion, or an act which is done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing
such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion’ – Bratty
Broome v Perkins – ‘when a person’s actions are involuntary and automatic his mind is not
controlling his limbs’ (there is a lack of control)
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) – there must be a ‘total destruction of
voluntary control on D’s part’
Automatism requires an external cause:
R v Quick – ‘a malfunctioning of the mind… caused by the application to the body of some
external factor such as violence, drugs including anaesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic
influences’ (confirms that the malfunctioning of the mind, to which causes D to have no
control over their actions, must come from an external cause)
Examples of external causes – concussion, drugs, medication, anaesthetics, hypnotism,
being attacked by a swarm of bees (hypothetical example from: Hill v Baxter)
Sneezing fits (R v Woolley)
PTSD – ‘psychological blow’ automatism – an event that happens to the accused that is so
traumatic, it triggers a temporary state of unconsciousness (examples: Rabey v R and R v
Stone)
Self-induced automatism:
Self-induced automatism (other than voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs) may provide
a defence, depending on whether the prosecution can prove the necessary element of
recklessness – R v Bailey
Defence where D lacks voluntary control and/or mental capacity at the time of the crime
Automatism provides a full defence
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defence beyond reasonable
doubt, but there is a burden on the defence to at least produce evidence of automatism –
Hill v Baxter
Automatism must have an external cause
Definition: ‘an act which is done… without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex
or a convulsion, or an act which is done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing
such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion’ – Bratty
Broome v Perkins – ‘when a person’s actions are involuntary and automatic his mind is not
controlling his limbs’ (there is a lack of control)
Attorney-General’s Reference (No.2 of 1992) – there must be a ‘total destruction of
voluntary control on D’s part’
Automatism requires an external cause:
R v Quick – ‘a malfunctioning of the mind… caused by the application to the body of some
external factor such as violence, drugs including anaesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic
influences’ (confirms that the malfunctioning of the mind, to which causes D to have no
control over their actions, must come from an external cause)
Examples of external causes – concussion, drugs, medication, anaesthetics, hypnotism,
being attacked by a swarm of bees (hypothetical example from: Hill v Baxter)
Sneezing fits (R v Woolley)
PTSD – ‘psychological blow’ automatism – an event that happens to the accused that is so
traumatic, it triggers a temporary state of unconsciousness (examples: Rabey v R and R v
Stone)
Self-induced automatism:
Self-induced automatism (other than voluntary consumption of alcohol/drugs) may provide
a defence, depending on whether the prosecution can prove the necessary element of
recklessness – R v Bailey
