Conduct is not involuntary because it is unforeseen or unintentional (HILL v BAXTER)
Conduct is not involuntary because it is not remembered (HILL v BAXTER)
Conduct is not involuntary because the defendant was not able to control his irresistible impulses (ATTORNEY GENERAL of SOUTH AUSTRALIA v BROWN)
Not all involuntary conduct leads to a complete acquittal
1 of 5
Was this caused by an External Factor?
The external factor theory was first introduced in the case of COTTLE
This is persuasive precedent, this means that it doesn't have any binding authority on the UK courts
The external factor theory includes 'violence, drugs and alcohol' (Source 1, Lines 15)
The first major use to the external factor theory was in QUICK (1973)
The external factor in QUICK was the isulin that the Dr prescribed for him
2 of 5
= A Total Destruction of Self-Control
The defence of automatism requires in a total loss of mental faculties - ISSIT (2005)
BROOME v PERKINS 2007 also agreed that the defence of automatism requires a total loss of mental faculties
In addition to this ATTORNEY GENERAL's REF NO.2 v BROWN found that automatism requires a total loss of mental faculties
3 of 5
Specific Intent and Basic Intent Offences
Specific Intent Crimes
Specific Intent crimes include murder
If a specific intent crime is self induced the defence of automatism can still be used
R v BAILY (1983) found that the defence of automatism is available for specific intent offences and for basic intent in some circumstance
Basic Intent Crimes
If D has been reckless in self-inducing automatism, D has the necessary Mens Rea and the defence of automatism will not succeed
KAY v BUTTERWORTH (1945) found that the defence of automatism will be unavailable when D's involuntary state had been self-induced
Self-induced automatism is where the defendant is too be blamed
E.g. Failing to eat after taking isulin
4 of 5
Sleepwalking as Automatism
BURGESS (1991) suggested that sleepqlaking is seen as a disease of mind and would fall under the scope of the M'Naghten rules
In addition to this, LOWE agrees with BURGESS
However, when Lord Denning defined automatism he mentioned sleepwalking as an example of it in the case of ATTORNEY GENERAL of NORTHERN IRELAND v BRATTY (1963)
Agreeing with BRATTY (1963) is PARKS (1992) which indicated that the Canadian Courts were willing to see sleepwalking as the defence of automatism and so was prepared to adopt a more flexible approach
R v BILTON (2005) and R v ECOTT (2007) found that the defence of automatism can be used in cases of sexsomnia and the defendant can be acquitted
Comments
No comments have yet been made