-Involuntary act caused by an external factor. Complete defence (not guilty if succesful).
Bratty- (Lord Denning)- 'an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind' eg spasm/reflex action/convulsion.
AG's Ref (No 2 of 1992)- Reduced awareness is not a defence, loss of control must be total.
Quick- HypOglycaemia (external factor).
R v T- **** was an external factor (gave her PTSD)
Self induced automatism and a specifc intent crime
-If D induces his automatic state, the offence charged is a specific intent crime and D lacks the mens rea for it, D can use self-induced automatism as a defence.
Bailey- S18- Specific intent crime, charged with S20 (reckless in taking the insulin and not eating).
Self induced automatism and a basic intent crime
-If the offence charged is a basic intent crime, D has been reckless in getting himself in a state of automatism, he will have no defence. (Majewski)- voluntarily getting into a state of automatism (intoxicated), so is reckless.
-However, if D does not know his actions are likely to lead to self induced automatism, he has not been reckless and can use the defence (Hardie).