16. Automatism - Criminal Law Exam Summary PDF

Preview

Summary

Criminal Law Exam Summary...

Description

Not in Crimes Act - Automatism The defence only bears the evidential burden Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the actions of the D were voluntary. Was the conduct of the Defendant voluntary? Automatism - No ability to control physical acts, no history of mental issues. Not Automatism - as opposed to no ability to separate real from unreal – Insanity Defence

2 Types of Automatism Insane Automatism (the defence of insanity – McNaughten Rule; Porter) When the cause is one of a ‘disease of the mind’. Same as ‘mental impairment’, its not passion, or a moment of stupidity. Person’s ability to understand and be cognisant is in disarray, and where this is the result of the unsound mind’s reactions to its own delusions or to external events and situations. Temporary or long-standing which prevents the defendant knowing the physical nature of the acts being performed or knowing what he was doing is wrong. If insane automatism - the defence of insanity applies. Non Insane/or Sane Automatism – the defence of automatism This is very rare as there are few occurrences or conditions that would fall outside of the category of ‘diseases of the mind’, and as such amount to as ‘insane automatism.’ An example of this is an act done while the accused is sleepwalking or because of a bump on the head. No ability to control physical acts.

The elements for Automatism are defined in: Falconer 1. D must prove that the reasonable person would have suffered sane automatism given the physical and psychological factors of their circumstances (Falconer) •

• • • • • •

Exempting factors which make automatism non insane – Transient -Caused by trauma, whether physical or psychological, which the mind of an ordinary person would not have been able to withstand -Not prone to recur - Falconer OBJECTIVE TEST the law must postulate a standard of mental strength possession by the ordinary person. Must take into account context and characteristics - Falconer Jury cannot take into account D’s emotional disturbance, stress or fear - Falconer In Falconer, this meant they could consider the husband’s violence but not D’s knowledge of husband’s abuse of their daughters or her depression. -Falconer Would an ordinary person have entered into a state of dissociation as a result of the incidentsFalconer Adopts the test of Radford. Distinction between “disease of the mind” (insanity) and reaction of a sound mind to external stimuli -Falconer

2. D must prove that their sane automatism is unlikely to recur (happen again) (Falconer) • •

• •

The expression encompasses a temporary mental disorder or disturbance prone to recur Woodbridge The dichotomy (contrast) is not between a mind affected by psychotic disturbances and a mind affected by less serious ailments, but between those minds which are health and those suffering from an underlying pathological infirmity -Woodbridge Amnesia alone will not satisfy the issue of automatism....-Radford Accused had worked himself up to an emotional frenzy – they doubted he was suffering from sane automatism but enough evidence to suggest a reasonable possibility...- Radford

Falconer (1990) Left husband, husband tracked her down, broke in, assaulted her, taunted her, Mrs Falconer went blank, she woke up, husband dead. On trial for murder. Disassociated state – no ability to control physical act – caused by combination of psychological and external stimuli – fractured link between mind and physical act. Found guilty of murder – appealed. Facts: D convicted of willful murder of her husband with a shotgun, fired by her. D gave evidence of a violent marriage and the discovery that V had sexually interfered with her daughters. On the day of his death, V had come to the house and sexually assaulted D. D remembered nothing from that point until she found herself on the floor with the gun by her, and V dead on the floor beside her. Issue: Would an ordinary person have entered into a state of dissociation as a result of the incidents? Ratio: Yes. HC upheld acquittal. OBJECTIVE TEST the law must postulate a standard of mental strength possession by the ordinary person. Must take into account context and characteristics. Jury cannot take into account D’s emotional disturbance, stress or fear. In Falconer, this meant they could consider the husband’s violence but not D’s knowledge of husband’s abuse of their daughters or her depression. Radford Case (1984) Vietnam war, had issues, marriage ailed, divorced, wife declared she was gay, planned to kidnap his wife to get her back (not insane just an idiot – there is a difference). He declares he did not have control over the shooting, went into a disassociated state – had so much pressure – disconnect – appeals a murder charge. Facts: Accused wanted to kidnap his ex-wife. Confronted his ex wife and love. Her partner came out with a cricket bat. D shot the V 7 times, as he believed that V and wife were in a lesbian relationship together. Held: It should have been taken to the jury as to whether Radford had an unsound or a sound mind and the extremity of the situation. Amnesia alone will not satisfy the issue of automatism.... Accused had worked himself up to an emotional frenzy – they doubted he was suffering from sane automatism but enough evidence but enough evidence to suggest a reasonable possibility...

Woodbridge v R (2010) Facts: She drove while extremely intoxicated; claimed was extremely distressed after ‘horrible’ and abusive calls from her ex-husband (in reaction to her slashing his tyres). She caused a road accident, which caused the death of another driver and horrific injuries to their passenger. She claimed that she had a number of disorders, her acts were not conscious or willed, and that she suffered from sane automatism. Trial Held: Trial judge applied Radford Diseases of the mind are not confined to schizophrenia. Rather they are any internal cause and likely to occur (even if temporary). She was reacting to a normal situation. (The calls were not so extraordinary so as to suggest that a mind reacted to them in the way W’s did may have been healthy.) – her dissociative disorder recurred on an umber of occasions

Examples: • Consumption of alcohol and drugs, O’Connor (1980) •

Concussion from a blow to the head, Wogandt (1983) – D will argue that the act was done in a state of temporary or transient dissociation following the severe emotional/psychological trauma

Dissociation due to external pressures Falconer – generally insane except where transient/unlikely to recur and an ordinary person would have succumbed as D did • • •

Sleepdriving’ – Robert James Kingston (2008) Sleepwalking, Jiminez (1992) Some forms of epilepsy, Youssef (1990)

Example Answer The prosecution is entitled to presume that D had sufficient mental capacity to act according to an exercise of will, i.e. that D’s act was voluntary (Falconer (1990)). In order to raise automatism as an issue, D must satisfy the evidential burden; that is, raise the reasonable possibility that D’s actions were not voluntary (Youssef (1990); Hawkins (1994)) because the decision to do the act and the act itself were not done in consciousness of the nature of the act (Ryan (1967)). Once the issue of sane automatism has been raised, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that D’s actions were voluntary. The defence of automatism is confined to sane automatism. The defence of insanity may subsume automatism if the involuntary act was caused by a disease of the mind. There are two types of automatism that D can argue: non-insane (sane) and insane. The facts of this case suggest that D committed the act in a state of [SANE/INSANE AUTOMATISM].

TESTS There are three tests outlined in Falconer that can be used to distinguish sane from insane automatism, however they are artificial and should only be applied as guides. Recurrence Test: if a mental condition is prone to recur it should be considered a disease of the mind (Bratty v AG Northern Ireland [1963]). If there is a high likelihood that it will recur, it is most likely insane automatism; if it is low, it is most likely sane. Internal / External Test: if the mental state is internal to D, it is insane automatism (Hennessy (1989)) and therefore a disease of the mind (insanity); if it arises from external causes, it is most likely sane (Falconer (1990); Quick (1973)). • It must be determined whether “an ordinary person [in D’s circumstances] would have succumbed to a state of dissociation [sane automatism] similar to that which [D] claims overtook her that day” (at 58), as a result of the incidents that occurred that day • Do not consider emotions/depression/knowledge of D, but D’s position Unsound / Sound Mind Test: a distinction must be made between a sound mind reacting to extreme pressure, and an unsound mind reacting to its own delusions or external stimuli (Radford (1985): a disease of the mind is considered to be evidenced by the latter)...