Essay On Automatism

1726 Words4 Pages

INTRODUCTION: One way to understand the “defence of automatism” which operates under the common law is having a full knowledge of its use. The nature, scope and what can amount to automatism as a defence will be examined likewise its limitation by the courts and the reforms to the defence. Automatism is a legal defence where an individual has no conscious knowledge of his actions. The authority definition by Lord Denning in Bratty v Attorney-General says automatism is an act done by muscles without any control of the mind such as spasm, a reflex action or action done by a person without knowledge of it. In other words, it is an act done involuntarily without any physical compulsion. It is a complete defence to any offence. The defence of automatism had been distinguished into two types such as; ‘insane’ and ‘non-insane’ automatism for public policy reasons.
Insane automatism alternatively referred to as the defence of insanity dates back from 1843 to what is known as the ‘M'Naughten Rules’ which govern the defence. Under this rule, the defendant at the time of the offence suffers a defect of reason caused by a disease of mind and didn't know that the nature of the act was legally wrong. The test for this defence is legal and not medically recognised as in Sullivan . A successful plea of this type of automatism is a special verdict of "not guilty by reason of insanity" leaving the court authority to detain and give suspension order in a hospital for public protection and the burden of proof rest upon the defendant. While, non-insane automatism sometimes referred to automatism is a defence applicable to all offence and has to do with total loss of voluntary control. The loss of control must not be self-induced when claiming the ...

... middle of paper ...

... and mental disorder. The defence shall be based on the lack of capacities of understanding and self-control. Some reforms could be the exemption of prior fault and placing cases with intoxication under its rule and not upon the defence.
CONCLUSION
The defence of automatism has given rise to anomalies issues that seem quite not easy to be resolved. The defence aim to protect threat to the public from disease that is prone to recur. However, there seems to be a doubt that the court had not fulfilled such policy consideration in trying to differentiate the types of automatism in other to restrict the possibility of granting simple acquittal. The restriction has been achieved through the factors doctrine but still not so dependable due to the difficulty is produce and that brought up the possible idea of reforming the law by the Law commission and legal academics.

Open Document