Q: Compare and contrast automatism with insanity.

Automatism and insanity both defenses fall under failure to proof. They are both excusatory
offenses negating conduct elements. Either one or both elements could be absent i.e. Mens
rea and actus rea. Automatism is defined by Lord Denning as an act done by muscle without
any control of muscle. Thus the act has to be involuntary done by muscles due to loss of
control of mind. In Hill V Baxter it was explained as an attack by bees or a blow to head.
Even strict liability crimes require voluntary action to establish actus rea. But it is required
that there should be complete loss of control for the defense to qualify even partial
understanding or consciousness will render the defense invalid as in Broome V Perkins.
Beside in order to avail the defense of automatism the defendant should not be at prior fault
meaning automatism should not be self-induced. As in the case of voluntary intoxication as in
Lipman. But if it done involuntarily defendant could avail the defense. Contrary is true for
crime of negligence where a condition/event could be prevented by taking reasonable actions.
The court employ medical evidence in both automatism and insanity. This is not required for
insanity.
Insanity as defined by M’Naghten rule according to which at the time of commission of an
offense the accused was suffering from disease of mind, defect of reasoning where the
accused was not aware of nature and quality of his act. From the rule it could be seen that
both automatism and insanity are mental conditions, under both conditions mens rea and
actus rea are negated. In insanity the accused usually cannot comprehend the nature and
quality of their act where as in automatism it is necessary that the accused does not know as
to what he is doing is wrong. but there is difference in the way in which the disease is caused.
For insanity the disease of mind is caused by internal factors and for automatism the mind is
effect by external trigger. For example, in Kemp the accused suffered from atrial sclerosis
which caused him temporarily lapse of consciousness due to which he attacked his wife with
a hammer. As the defect was caused by internal factor it was treated as insanity. In R V T the
trigger was rape which was considered as an external factor. Analysis the case of Quick and
Hennessey the distinction between them seems to be artificial. The condition of
hypoglycaemia is treated as an external trigger. Therefore, constituting to automatism where
as in Hennessy Hyperglycaemia is treated as internal cause constituting to insanity. In both
the conditions are same but leading to different conviction. Another distinction between them
is that of burden of proof. The burden of proof lies on the defense instead of prosecution.
Beside that the defense could be raised by either prosecution or defence. Insanity is not denial
of Mens Rea as the accused might intent to do what he did but he is unaware of it being
wrong. for example as in Loake.