Automatism Definition

Case studies

"A lot of the work that I do is historic-the maximum sentences change at different points of time. It's really complicated and people get it wrong all the time. That's when having a timeline is really useful."

1 High Pavement

Access all documents on Automatism

GET ACCESS NOW

GLOSSARY

What does Automatism mean?

An act or acts carried out while a person can be said to lack the capacity to make independent rational decisions or lacks the animus to prevent themselves from carrying out an act.

In law, automatism is limited to cases where there is a total destruction of voluntary control; impaired or reduced awareness will not do. This may be caused by insanity, or by external factors such as an external source of intoxication. However, self-induced automatism caused by alcohol or drugs is not a defence to most criminal action unless that offence requires specific intent. Automatism that is not self-induced, or is self-induced but in bona fide compliance with a medical prescription, is a complete defence to any charge. Self-induced automatism not of the above description is a defence to crimes of 'specific intent' but not to crimes of 'basic intent' unless the defendant was not subjectively reckless as to the effect that taking the substance otherwise than as prescribed would have.

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Automatism

There is a distinction between insane and non-insane automatism; insane automatism, otherwise known as insanity, does not provide a complete defence but rather a special verdict of ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’. However, a defence of non-insane automatism provides a total of defence which results in an acquittal. The distinction is that insane automatism is caused by an internal factor whereas the involuntary action for non-insane automatism must be caused by an external factor.Practitioners will need to consider carefully whether a defendant lacks the necessary mens rea due to non-insane automatism or whether the defence of insanity applies. Consideration will also need to be given to whether the automatism was self-induced by the defendant.This Practice Note focuses on non-insane automatism.See Practice Note: The defence of insanity regarding the defence of insane automatism (insanity).Burden of proofWhere the defence of automatism is raised by the defendant, the prosecution must disprove it beyond reasonable doubt by showing that the act(s) done were voluntarily.In most cases the defence of automatism should be supported...

Specific and basic intent

Intention refers to the outcome sought by the defendant. Offences may be described as either ones of ‘basic intent’ or of ‘specific intent’. The Court of Appeal has described this distinction as ‘elusive’. The Court nevertheless provided the following definition of specific intent:‘Crimes of specific intent are those where the offence requires proof of purpose or consequence, which are not confined to, but amongst which are included, those where the purpose goes beyond the actus reus (sometimes referred to as cases of “ulterior intent”).’The Court also approved the reasoning that:‘[A] distinction is to be made between (i) intention as applied to acts considered in relation to their purposes and (ii) intention as applied to acts apart from their purposes. A general intent attending the commission of an act is, in some cases, the only intent required to constitute the crime while, in others, there must be, in addition to that general intent, a specific intent attending the purpose for the commission of the act.’Put simply, offences of specific intent require...

Discover our 3 Practice Notes on Automatism