This document discusses the legal defense of automatism, where a defendant's actions are involuntary due to an external uncontrollable factor. For automatism to apply, the act must be due to a spasm, convulsion or other uncontrollable response induced by an external stimulus, such as being stung by bees. Both case law and legal principles discussed in the document require the act to be involuntary and prevent the defendant from forming criminal intent for automatism to be a successful complete defense leading to acquittal.

1. Bratty: Need for an involuntary act
over which the body has no control

2. Must be: something such as a spasm
or convulsion

3. Hill v Baxter: must be a
vol, positive act for liability. Case
where driver got stung by bees

4. Whoolley: must be a vol, positive act
for liability. Case involved someone
sneezing.

5. Act must: be induced by an external
factor

6. Quick: Diabetic who suffered automatism as
a result of taking insulin

7. Defendant must: be incapable of
forming mens rea

8. Successfully raising automatism leads
to acquittal as it is a complete defence.