7 - Automatism & Insanity PDF

Preview

Summary

AUTOMATISM occurs when a defendant suffers a complete loss of self-control caused by an external factor. It states that the individual lacked the mens rea and denies the actus reus. - A negation of the actus reus of a crimeIn order to plead automatism, a defendant would show: 1. He suffered a comple...

Description

AUTOMATISM & INSANITY AUTOMATISM occurs when a defendant suffers a complete loss of self-control caused by an external factor. It states that the individual lacked the mens rea and denies the actus reus. - A negation of the actus reus of a crime In order to plead automatism, a defendant would show: 1. He suffered a complete loss of voluntary control 2. This was caused by an external factor 3. He was not at fault for losing in capacity 1. A complete loss of voluntary control Attorney-General’s Reference [No 2 of 1992] [1994] A driver of a heavy-goods lorry crashed into a stationary van killing two people. Was charged with reckless driving but his psychologist stated he suffered from a condition known as ‘driving without awareness’. Argued that this amounted to automatism. - He was first acquitted by the jury. - CPS believed a potential mistake was made during the acquittal, Attorney General can ask the CA for an advisory opinion -

2. The external factor If a person acts whilst unaware of what he is doing, they may be an automaton or insane. The distinction between the two is whether it was caused by: - an internal factor – classified as insane – mental illnesses - or, external factor – complete defence of automatism – blow to the head, taking prescribed medication Internal v External factors: Internal: - Epileptic seizure - Sullivan - Diabetic hyperglycaemia Hennessy – a diabetic was suffering from H due to not taking his insulin and was driving recklessly. Raised automatism as his defence but court stated this is not a disease of the mind and is an internal factor. But it was a defence of insanity. - Sleepwalking – Burgess External: - Voluntary intoxication – Coley - A 17-year-old was convicted of attempted murder. Regular use of strong cannabis and enjoyed violent video games. He went into his neighbour’s house and stabbed her partner resulting in serious injuries. Claimed to have no recollection. Psychologists stated that he may have suffered from a ‘brief psychotic episode’. Could he rely on automatism or insanity? -

Hypoglycaemia due to the effect of insulin – Quick – the nurse did bodily harm to the patient raising automatism as a defence; taking insulin but not enough – this

AUTOMATISM & INSANITY was the cause of her action. Court stated this was not internal as her action was a result of the drug. But here it worked -

PTSD caused by rape 3 days earlier T – woman involved in robbery stabbed someone. Introduced medical evidence stating she experienced disassociation (symptom of PTSD as a result of being raped 3 days earlier) – it was A

-

Obiter: knock on the head, sneeze, attack by bees, stroke or heart attack

3. No fault for causing the condition The defendant cannot plead automatism if he is responsible for causing the condition. It is a subjective test to apply of “was the defendant aware that his actions would cause his mental condition?”. The ‘fault’ element - Voluntary intoxication – Majewski - Perhaps: failure to eat food after taking insulin – Quick - If the concussion that cause automatism was itself caused by intoxication – Stripp

1. Is this a case of automatism in which the voluntary conduct element is not satisfied? 2. Even if so, you can still be deemed to have acted voluntarily if you were at fault for causing your automatism The test for re-inculpation: The defendants automatism had to result from his prior fault - He had to actually foresee the risk that he would become an automaton – obiter in Bailey - if the defendant satisfied the test, voluntariness will be imputed to him and so, will any other missing mens rea elements, including recklessness 3.

AUTOMATISM & INSANITY INSANITY 1. The defendant can claim he was insane at the time of the offence 2. The defendant can raise a defence of no MR or automatism 3. If the defendant raises a plea of diminished responsibility, then the prosecution can rebut the defence M’Naughten Rules Every man is presumed to be sane and possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes. The defendant is legally insane if and only if: - The defendant suffers from a disease of the mind causing a defect of reason AND - This caused the defendant to either: o Not understand the nature and quality of his act o Not understand it was wrong. M’Naughten: Daniel M had clinical paranoia and was obsessed with the conservative party and convinced they were ‘out to get him personally’. He kills the secretary and the trial judge asked the jury to rule whether he was insane. He was acquitted, and the judge and court were highly criticised. This led to a special hearing revolving around insanity hearings. This case is treated like precedent despite not being one. “disease of the mind” – the defendant is suffering from a disease which affected the functioning of his mind. The burden of proof for insanity: Insanity is the only defence where it is up to the defendant to prove he was insane under the M’Naughten rule.

R v Sullivan [1984] D was visiting a friend when he had an epileptic seizure where he kicked his friend inflicting GBH. He relied on automatism, but evidence revealed insanity to avoid being found guilty on insanity, pleaded guilty to ABH. Then appealed to not being able to plead on automatism. Appeal dismissed. - pleaded guilty of ABH in the crown court to avoid a special verdict and mandatory hospital order (judges now have discretion to not send offenders to hospital) - principles of criminal law (Lord Diplock considered) – Insanity is not an attractive option – if successfully raised as a defence (affirmative or denial of mens rea) you receive a special verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity - you are denied a full acquittal and the court can order you to be hospitalized or otherwise supervised for as long as medical professionals consider you to be a danger to others.

AUTOMATISM & INSANITY Loake v DPP – appellant convicted of harassment against his wife. Judge imposed a restraining order. - Started in magistrates court, to crown court and finally to high.

Insanity defences: - He or she did not know the nature and quality of his actions - He or she did not know what he was doing was wrong

Insanity as an affirmative defence (type 2) Insanity is treated as an affirmative defence if the nature of the insanity doesn’t undermine the evidence of mens rea on the part of the defendant. This falls under 2(b) of the M’Naughten rules that the defendant does not understand his conduct is legally wrong....