The document summarizes the legal concept of automatism and provides examples of cases where the defense of automatism was used or rejected. It discusses the definition of automatism as an act done without control of the mind, such as a reflex. It then provides 3 rules from the Bailey case that determine when the defense can be used for specific vs. basic intent crimes and how recklessness affects the defense. A series of case facts and rulings are also presented to illustrate when the automatism defense was accepted or rejected.

1. Revision Session on
Automatism!
10.02.2012

2. Recap automatism
Definition?
An act done by the muscles without any control
by the mind, such as a spasm, a reflex action.
It can also be an act done by a person who is
not conscious of what he is doing.
Examples?

3. 2 types of automatism
• Also known as?
Insane
Automatism
• Give examples of external factors such can
Non-insane raise defence for this?
Automatism

4. ?
FACTS:
D drove through a halt sign without stopping and collided with another car. He
was charged with dangerous driving but acquitted by the magistrates who
accepted that he remembered nothing from some distance before reaching the
halt sign.
HELD:
The Divisional Court allowed the prosecution’s appeal and remitted the case back
to the magistrates, with a direction to convict as there was no evidence to
support a defence of automatism!

5. Facts?
D was raped. Three days later she took part in a robbery and assault. She claimed
that at the time she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder as a
result of the rape and that she had acted in a dream like state.
Held:
Accepted that exceptional stress can be an external factor which may
cause automatism.

6. FACTS:
: D was a lorry driver, who after driving for several hours drove along the hard
shoulder of a motorway for about half a mile. He hit a broken down car which
was stationery on the hard shoulder, killing two people. He said that e was
suffering from the condition ‘driving without awareness’ which puts a driver into
a trance-like state. The jury acquitted him.
HELD:
The A-G referred the point of law to the CA who ruled that because this
condition only causes partial loss of control, it did not amount to automatism.

7. ?
FACTS:
D was a diabetic who had failed to eat enough after taking his insulin to control
the diabetes. He became aggressive and hit someone over the head with an
iron bar.
HELD:
The trial judge ruled that the defence of automatism was not available. Bailey
appealed. The CA upheld D’s conviction as there was insufficient evidence in the
case to raise the defence of automatism.

8. ?
FACTS:
D was depressed because his girlfriend had told him to move out of their flat. He
took some valium tablets which had been prescribed for his former girlfriend. She
encouraged him to take the tablets, stating it would calm him down. He then set fire
to a wardrobe in the flat. He said he did not know what he was doing because of the
valium.
HELD:
The trial judge directed the jury to ignore the effect of the tablets and he was
convicted of arson. The CA quashed his conviction as D had taken the drug to calm
him down. This is the normal effect of Valium. So D had not been reckless and the
defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury.

9. What were the 3 rules from Bailey?
1. There is a difference in the way the defence
applies to SPECIFIC intent and BASIC intent.
2. Main rule that D cannot use S.I.A if he has
bought the automatic state by being
RECKLESS.
3. Where the defendant does not know that his
actions are likely to cause a S.I state in which
he may commit an offence – he can raise
defence.