Automatism: Difference between revisions
imported>Louise Valmoria (New page: {{subpages}}) |
imported>Louise Valmoria (Brief introduction to automatism; more to come shortly. Note to self to draw up diagram of verdicts) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
'''Automatism''' is a plea by a defendant in a criminal case that their actions were not under the control of their conscious mind. A successful plea of automatism negates the conduct element of the actus reus of the alleged offence. | |||
==Automatism as a defence== | |||
===Where the defendant exercised some control=== | |||
If a defendant is to be held criminally liable, they need to demonstrate voluntary behaviour. Involuntary behaviour in legal terms can occur in two ways: by loss of physical control, or impaired consciousness. <ref>Simester AP, Sullivan GR, (Oxford, 2007) Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine 3rd Edition, p 103-105</ref> | |||
===Sane automatism=== | |||
<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/ukpga_19910025_en_2 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964]</ref> | |||
===Insane Automatism=== | |||
<ref>[http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910025_en_1 Criminal Procedure (Inanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991]</ref> | |||
==Precedents in UK Law== | |||
''Woolmington v DPP [1935]'' | |||
Established that, subject to limited exceptions, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Emphasis was placed on the requirement in criminal law that a voluntary, willed act on the part of the defendant was essential for criminal liability. | |||
''Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1961]'' | |||
“No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily’. Lord Denning clarified an involuntary act as one “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 whilst sleepwalking.” <ref>David Ormerod, (Oxford, 2005) Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law, p 48</ref> | |||
==Current Developments in UK Law== | |||
The Draft Criminal Code<ref>[http://www.bopcris.ac.uk/bopall/ref21398.html Draft Criminal Code]</ref> includes within the definition of automatism an movement which: | |||
Is a reflex, spasm or convulsion; or occurs while he is in a condition ... depriving him of effective control of the act. | |||
While less harsh than the existing equirement of total deprivation of control, this Code has not yet become law. | |||
==References== | |||
Case Law: | |||
Woolmington v DPP [1935] | |||
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1961] | |||
Broome v Perkins [1987] (Div. Ct.) | |||
Attorney General’s Reference (No 2. of 1992) [1993] CA | |||
<ref/> | |||
Revision as of 23:53, 6 January 2008
Automatism is a plea by a defendant in a criminal case that their actions were not under the control of their conscious mind. A successful plea of automatism negates the conduct element of the actus reus of the alleged offence.
Automatism as a defence
Where the defendant exercised some control
If a defendant is to be held criminally liable, they need to demonstrate voluntary behaviour. Involuntary behaviour in legal terms can occur in two ways: by loss of physical control, or impaired consciousness. [1]
Sane automatism
Insane Automatism
Precedents in UK Law
Woolmington v DPP [1935]
Established that, subject to limited exceptions, the burden was on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Emphasis was placed on the requirement in criminal law that a voluntary, willed act on the part of the defendant was essential for criminal liability.
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1961]
“No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily’. Lord Denning clarified an involuntary act as one “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 whilst sleepwalking.” [4]
Current Developments in UK Law
The Draft Criminal Code[5] includes within the definition of automatism an movement which:
Is a reflex, spasm or convulsion; or occurs while he is in a condition ... depriving him of effective control of the act.
While less harsh than the existing equirement of total deprivation of control, this Code has not yet become law.
References
Case Law: Woolmington v DPP [1935] Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1961] Broome v Perkins [1987] (Div. Ct.) Attorney General’s Reference (No 2. of 1992) [1993] CA
Cite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name
- ↑ Simester AP, Sullivan GR, (Oxford, 2007) Criminal Law: Theory and Doctrine 3rd Edition, p 103-105
- ↑ Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
- ↑ Criminal Procedure (Inanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
- ↑ David Ormerod, (Oxford, 2005) Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law, p 48
- ↑ Draft Criminal Code