1 / 5

Automatism

Automatism . Type of defence Rarely used defense. Definition . Automatism is the state of acting without being aware/without control over one's muscles. In other words, it is the denial that the  actus reus  was performed voluntarily . Involuntarily

horace
Download Presentation

Automatism

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Automatism Type of defence Rarely used defense

  2. Definition • Automatism is the state of acting without being aware/without control over one's muscles. In other words, it is the denial that the actusreus was performed voluntarily. Involuntarily Means that the defendant was not aware of their actions while performing the criminal act. For example, a woman threw her child out of a first floor window believing there was a fire while having a night terror.

  3. Sane Automatism • Automatism in this case does not involve any question of disease of the mind. It is concerned with involuntariness, which does not derive from disease of the mind or mental illness.

  4. How it is used in the criminal system • Where an act (otherwise criminal) is done in a state of automatism, that is, without control or direction of the will of [the accused] over what is being done, then no crime is committed and [the accused] must be found “not guilty”. Complete defence • To summarise, unless the Crown proves beyond reasonable doubt that the act of [the accused] was subject to the control and direction of [his/her] will, then [he/she] must be acquitted because no offence has been committed. Defence: Not have direction of will Prosecution: Must prove that they did The only defense that excludes responsibility by negating the existence of the actusreus which allows it to be a defense to both conventional and strict liability.

  5. Cases where non-insane automatism was used as a defence: Not Australian: • The act of a sleepwalker: R v Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 at 187; • An act done under the influence of an anaesthetic: R v Sullivan (1984) AC 156. Solomon Islands: • In R v Stubbles [1959] CrimLR 660 the Court held that the defence of 'automatism' is only available if the driver was suddenly and unexpectedly deprived of all thought and that such state was not connected with any deliberate acts or conduct on his/her part and arose from a cause which a reasonable person would have no reason to think and the driver did not anticipate, would occur.  • In Cooper v McKenna [1960] QdR 406 the Court held that post – traumatic 'automatism' can amount to a defence in a dangerous driving charge, but it is a defence which must be closely scrutinised. That Court also stated that 'blackout' is one of the first refuges of a guilty conscience and a popular excuse.  • Example: For this defense to be valid, the defendant must not be at fault. For example, if the defendant fell asleep at the wheel of his or her car, they would still be held responsible for driving in a state where they would be likely to fall asleep at the wheel.

More Related