Automatism

Definition of Automatism: A state in which the mind or will of a person does not accompany the person’s actions (i.e. the actions are involuntary)

Automatism can deprive the accused’s actions of their voluntariness, and thus prevent the prosecution from establishing the physical elements of an offence. The accused must satisfy the evidential burden of raising automatism, which the prosecution must then negative beyond reasonable doubt.

Defence of automatism goes to whether the conduct of the Defendant was voluntary.

Types of automatism

1. Insane Automatism: A condition where the accused is suffering from a disease of the mind such as to behave in an automatic state. Defence of insanity applies, with onus on the Defence to prove on the balance of probabilities.

If successful, results in a verdict of “not guilty by reason of mental illness”

2. Sane Automatism: Automatism that does not result from a disease of the mind.

Prosecution bears onus of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that actions of Defendant were voluntary.
If successful, results in a complete acquittal

Bratty v A-G of Northern Ireland (1963) - (psychomotor epilepsy)

Bratty suffered from psychomotor epilepsy, and under an attack he strangled an 18 year old girl who consequently died. He said to the police that when he was with the girl a blackness came over him and he couldn’t remember anything. At the trial, the defence raised both sane automatism and insanity. The trial judge allowed the insanity defence only to be put to the jury. Bratty was convicted. On appeal, the House of Lords held:

Þ Insane and sane automatism are separate defences, but both can be put to the jury in appropriate circumstances.
Þ Presumption that acts are voluntary, unless defendant raises “sufficient evidence” of non insane automatism.
Þ External stimulus on a defective mental condition raises insanity, not sane automatism.

Radford (1985) - (dissociated state)

Radford was a Vietnam Veteran. He and his wife divorced, and Radford was convinced that this came about due to his wife being in a lesbian relationship with the victim. Radford approached his ex-wife wanting to get back together but she refused. He then went around to her place of residence armed with
a gun (as you do). The victim came out with a cricket bat and the defendant shot her 7 times. The defence at the trial was that the D was in dissociated state and had no control over his action. It was held that only insanity could go to the jury, not sane automatism. The D was convicted and he appealed. It was held on appeal:

Þ If involuntary conduct is due exclusively to disease of the mind, the applicable defence is insanity, not sane automatism.
Þ Definition of disease of the mind is “underlying pathological infirmity of the mind”
Þ “Dissociated state” of defendant was “the reaction of a sound mind to extraordinary stress produced by external factors” and raised sane automatism.

[Leading Case]

Falconer (1990) (HC) - Psychological trauma resulting in a disassociate state of mind may amount to sane automatism

- D bears onus of proving both insane and non insane automatism on balance of probabilities.

Facts: The defendant was convicted of the wilful murder of her husband with a shotgun. She gave evidence of a violent marriage & the discovery that her husband had sexually interfered with her daughters. She remembered nothing from that point until she found herself on the floor with a gun by her & her husband dead on the floor beside her.

Decision: Toohey J (Deane J, Dawson J and Gaudron J agreeing in separate judgements)
If non inane automatism is raised, Prosecution bears the onus of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt. Adopts the test of Radford. à Distinction between “disease of the mind” (insanity) and reaction of a sound mind to external stimuli (non insane automatism).

If the psychological trauma suffered by the accused (externally caused) would have produced a transient dissociative state in the ordinary or normal person, then it may be regarded as sane automatism. If, however, it would not produce this state in the ordinary person then the issue would fail, or the jury should be directed as to insanity. Here, she was entitled to an acquittal.

Extra info: Toohey J is very critical of the English view where by they are strictly:

# Internal stimuli = Insane   /   # External Stimuli = non insane

For eg. In English case of Burgess [1991]: Accused was sleepwalking (found internal) and therefore was found to be insane.

Joyce [1970]

Facts: The defendant was charged with murder when he stabbed a girl to death. At the trial, evidence was given that he was in a state of dissociation at the relevant time, in which one part of him knew what he was doing & intended to kill, while the other part of him did not. He was not suffering from a disease of the mind.
Decision: Court held that where the personality was divided, & one of the divided parts was conscious of the act & willed it, the defence of automatism & insanity could not be relied on.