Automatism

Insane and Non-Insane Automatism

Group Members:
Renae Osbourne
Gabrielle Douglas
 Objectives
UPON THE COMPLETION OF THIS PRESENTATION, STUDENTS SHOULD BE ABLE TO;

❏ Define Automatism
❏ Provide examples of Automatism
❏ Tell the different Types of Automatism
❏ Give details on each type
❏ Provide case examples of each type
 Automatism is not a medical
condition or state. It is a legal
term used to describe a situation
where acts or behaviour have
occurred without the volition or
What is Automatism? will of the accused. The
determining factor is the lack of
exercise of the accused’s will and
not a lack of consciousness or
knowledge on the accused’s part.
 Examples of Automatism
For example, where a person is aware of what is happening, of what they are doing, but is unable to
control their actions, and is essentially disassociated from the act, they may be acting involuntarily and as
an ‘automaton’. Automatism is not related to whether the person knew what they were doing. Rather, it
relies on whether there was no deliberation in the behaviour, and whether the accused acted
automatically.
★ Sleepwalking:
Eg.Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on
fire, while having a sleep terror\In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled
his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder.
★ Mentally ill/ disordered
 Examples of Automatism Cont’d
★ Epileptic Seizures
★ Involuntary Intoxication

Eg. In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R.E.M., was
cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought
on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills
 What are the two types of Automatism?

SANE AUTOMATISM INSANE AUTOMATISM

The distinction between automatism and insanity hinges on whether the cause of the
involuntary conduct was due to an external or internal factor. If the factor is internal, the
plea is not guilty by reason of insanity; if external, the plea is not guilty.
 What is Insane Automatism?
Insane automatism is a result of a ‘disease of the mind’ and is the reaction of an unsound
mind to its delusions or external stimuli. A ‘disease of the mind’ is synonymous with mental
illness.
The phrase disease of the mind has been determined in case law to be the same as ‘mental
impairment’. However, this is not just any mental impairment such as being impaired by
passion or a moment of stupidity. Courts have found that a disease of the mind comes about
where the person’s ability to understand and be cognisant is in disarray and where this is the
result of the unsound mind’s reactions to its own delusions or to external events and
situations.
 Insane Automatism Cases
R v M’Naghten (1843) 8 ER 718
The defendant, Daniel M'Naghten was obsessed with the Prime Minister at the time, Sir Robert Peel.
M’Naghten attempted to kill the Prime Minister by shooting him but instead shot and killed Edward Drummond
who was the Prime Minister's Secretary. At trial it became evident that M'Naghten was suffering from insane
delusions at the time of the killing and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. This led to public outcry due
to the high profile nature of the crime. In upholding the findings, the House of Lords set out what subsequently
became known as the M'Naghten rules. Speaking at paragraph 719, Lord Tindal CJ explained that “In all cases
of this kind the jurors ought to be told that every man is presumed to be sane, and to possess a sufficient degree
of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction: and that to establish a
defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the party
accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and
quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong.".
 Insane Automatism Cases Cont’d
R v Kemp (1957) 1 QB 399
A husband violently attacked his wife with a hammer and was charged with causing
grievous bodily harm. At the time of the attack he suffered from a medical condition of
hardening of the arteries which lead to a congestion of blood in the brain which caused a
lack of consciousness so that he was not aware of what he was doing. The Court held that
the hardening of the arteries was a disease of the mind within the M'Naghten Rules despite
the fact it was not a degeneration of the brain. Devlin J stated that the important issue is the
state of mind of the accused, not how he got there and the mind did not mean the brain
instead it referred to the ordinary mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding.
 Other Insane Automatism Cases
★ R v Sullivan (1984) AC 156
★ R v Codere (1916) 12 Cr App R 21
★ R v Burgess (1991) 2 WLR 1206
 What Is Sane Automatism?

Sane automatism is caused solely by external stimuli and as such does not result from a ‘disease of
the mind’. An underlying infirmity triggered by external stimuli, however, will still be considered a
‘disease of the mind’ and could thus give rise to a defence of insane automatism.
For example, if the Accused has diabetes, the type of automatism will depend on the internal or
external stimuli. Hypoglycaemia (low blood sugar) is caused by excessive insulin intake and will be
considered ‘sane automatism’ because it came about due to external stimuli being the administering
of medication. Hyperglycaemia (high blood sugar) is caused by excessive levels of sugar in the
blood and is considered ‘insane automatism’ because it is caused by the body’s internal processes or
underlying infirmity and results in disease of the mind.
 Sane Automatism Cases

R v Clarke (2009) EWCA Crim 921

The defendant was a diabetic who was exceptionally careful at all times and responsible in ensuring that
his blood sugar level remained steady. On a long drive, despite checking his blood sugar levels prior to
setting off his blood sugar dropped and he became hypoglycaemic. His driving became uncontrolled and
he knocked down and killed a small child. He was charged with causing death by dangerous driving. It
was held that he was reckless as to becoming an automaton as he must have, even briefly, become aware
of what was happening and failed to take action by pulling over. Accordingly, he was unable to rely on the
defence.

Where the defendant self induces his automatism, but does so by taking a substance which is usually
known to have a soporific effect then he will not be deemed to have been reckless.
 Sane Automatism Cases Cont’d

R v Hardie (1985) 1 WLR 64

The defendant set light to some furniture after taking some out of date Valium which was prescribed to his
partner. He took the valium tablets in response to feeling stressed as his partner and him had had a big
argument and he had been kicked out of their home. He was charged with arson. He sought to rely on non-
insane automatism as he remembered nothing of starting the fire due to his intoxicated state. The Valium
was taken for the purpose of calming the nerves and the defendant was told it would do him no harm. There
was no evidence that it was known generally that taking Valium in the quantity stated would be liable to
render a person aggressive unpredictable then despite the fact that the Valium was a drug and was taken
deliberately, not on medical prescription, the defendant was not reckless. The drug was wholly different in
kind from drugs which are liable to cause unpredictability or aggressiveness.
 Links to other Sane Automatism Cases

★ R v Parks [1992] 2 SCR 871

★ R v Bailey (1983) 1 WLR 760
★ Broome v Perkins (1987) 85 Cr App R 321
What is the difference Between Insane and Non-Insane Automatism?
The essential difference between insane and non-insane automatism is that for insane
automatism the defect of reason must be caused by an internal factor whereas for non-insane
automatism the involuntary action must be caused by an external factor.
 Cases Outlining the Difference
R v Hennessy (1989) 1 WLR 297
The defendant was an insulin dependent diabetic who did not take any insulin and went without
food for a period of days which caused him to suffer from hyperglycemia. In this case the Court
held that the defendant’s behaviour was caused by the internal factor of the non-regulation of the
blood sugar and as such the correct defence of his behaviour was insane automatism.
R v Quick (1973) QB 910
The defendant was charged with assault. He had taken insulin and then consumed some food and
drink which caused him to suffer from hyperglycemia. It was held by the Court that the external
factor of the insulin caused the behaviour and thus the correct defence was non-insane automatism
THANKS FOR LISTENING!!!
ANY QUESTIONS?