www.thelawbank.co.uk - This is a short video that looks at the second incapacity defence of Non Insane Automatism or just automatism as it is more commonly referred to.
Hi Carl - Quick is a case where the Appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the original trial judge did not offer Automatism to the jury and therefore got it wrong. Quick sought to raise the defence of automatism as at the time of the attack he was hypoglycaemic, in that he had taken too much insulin and eaten very little on the day in question. In addition he had consumed alcohol before the attack. The trial judge ruled that this gave rise not to automatism but insanity. The defendant then changed his plea to guilty and appealed. The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. His hypoglycaemia was caused not by his diabetes but by the external factor of insulin. "In this case Quick's alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not caused by his diabetes but by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. Such malfunctioning of his mind as there was, was caused by an external factor and not by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed the working of his mind. It follows in our judgment that Quick was entitled to have his defence of automatism left to the jury and that Mr. Justice Bridge's ruling as to the effect of the medical evidence called by him was wrong. Had the defence of automatism been left to the jury, a number of questions of fact would have had to be answered. If he was in a confused mental condition, was it due to a hypoglycaemic episode or to too much alcohol? If the former, to what extent had he brought about his condition by not following his doctor's instructions about taking regular meals? Did he know that he was getting into a hypoglycaemic episode? If yes, why did he not use the antidote of eating a lump of sugar as he had been advised to do? On the evidence which was before the jury Quick might have had difficulty in answering these questions in a manner which would have relieved him of responsibility for his acts. We cannot say, however, with the requisite degree of confidence, that the jury would have convicted him. It follows that his conviction must be quashed on the ground that the verdict was unsatisfactory." Does that make more sense?
I love your videos. I have subscribed to the website however I am not sure how it allows access to other information besides the information that is already free and available. It seems that the information was always freely accessible. What exactly are the benefits of the subscription? Thank you in advance.
Carl just clarifying the last part, that there must complete loss of awareness/control. What confuses me is awareness and control is two separate things, for instance if I'm hit by someone behind my back, I react and hit them back while I don't have control of my action because it was a reaction. However I may have been aware that I hit back because of a sub-conscious mind, since it reacts to use of violence. So when saying complete loss of control/awareness do you just mean control or both awareness and control?
Would automatism be a viable argument if somebody defended themselves and then saw red and caused what could be seen as too much damage to a attacker? Since self defense would most likely be down to instinct and not necessarily a conscious act?
No it can not be used for basic intent crimes as basic intent means that d intended the outcome or was reckless as to whether the outcome occurred. Someone who gets voluntarily intoxicated is at the very least reckless.
So they have the MR for a basic intent crime. Voluntarily intoxication can be used of specific intent crimes only if it can be shown that the intoxication essentially prevented D from intending the crime.
Yes. It can in crimes where only intention is sufficient. So if someone is so drunk they could not have intended the outcome this could be a defence. However, the key point is intent. If it is clear that someone formed the intent before getting drunk or had the intention despite being drunk they can still be found guilty. I hope that makes sense
Let’s say someone got voluntarily high and as a result of being high the had hallucinations which caused them to believe a person was a snake. It cannot be said they intended to kill a person because in their hallucination they thought they were killing a snake so they did not have the men’s rea for murder. So this means that intoxication (even thought it is voluntary) can be used as a defence for murder because murder requires intention to kill a person. However, this person could be prosecuted for manslaughter because recklessness is part of the MR of this offence. So voluntary intoxication can be used when only intention is enough. However, is D knows they hallucinate and become dangerous violent and gets high with the purpose of killing someone they cannot use the voluntary intoxication as a defence because they have the intention to kill despite being drunk.
Hi Carl - Quick is a case where the Appeal was allowed and the conviction quashed because the original trial judge did not offer Automatism to the jury and therefore got it wrong. Quick sought to raise the defence of automatism as at the time of the attack he was hypoglycaemic, in that he had taken too much insulin and eaten very little on the day in question. In addition he had consumed alcohol before the attack. The trial judge ruled that this gave rise not to automatism but insanity. The defendant then changed his plea to guilty and appealed.
The appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. His hypoglycaemia was caused not by his diabetes but by the external factor of insulin.
"In this case Quick's alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not caused by his diabetes but by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. Such malfunctioning of his mind as there was, was caused by an external factor and not by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed the working of his mind. It follows in our judgment that Quick was entitled to have his defence of automatism left to the jury and that Mr. Justice Bridge's ruling as to the effect of the medical evidence called by him was wrong. Had the defence of automatism been left to the jury, a number of questions of fact would have had to be answered. If he was in a confused mental condition, was it due to a hypoglycaemic episode or to too much alcohol? If the former, to what extent had he brought about his condition by not following his doctor's instructions about taking regular meals? Did he know that he was getting into a hypoglycaemic episode? If yes, why did he not use the antidote of eating a lump of sugar as he had been advised to do? On the evidence which was before the jury Quick might have had difficulty in answering these questions in a manner which would have relieved him of responsibility for his acts. We cannot say, however, with the requisite degree of confidence, that the jury would have convicted him. It follows that his conviction must be quashed on the ground that the verdict was unsatisfactory."
Does that make more sense?
One of the best lecture I have ever heard...u got wonderful pedagogy style...too thanks a million
I love your videos. I have subscribed to the website however I am not sure how it allows access to other information besides the information that is already free and available. It seems that the information was always freely accessible. What exactly are the benefits of the subscription? Thank you in advance.
Thank you ❤
Carl just clarifying the last part, that there must complete loss of awareness/control. What confuses me is awareness and control is two separate things, for instance if I'm hit by someone behind my back, I react and hit them back while I don't have control of my action because it was a reaction. However I may have been aware that I hit back because of a sub-conscious mind, since it reacts to use of violence. So when saying complete loss of control/awareness do you just mean control or both awareness and control?
Thank you!!!!! So clear and helpful
Would automatism be a viable argument if somebody defended themselves and then saw red and caused what could be seen as too much damage to a attacker? Since self defense would most likely be down to instinct and not necessarily a conscious act?
How can AG’s Ref no. 2 1992 be guilty of automatism when there hasn’t been an external factor?
Do you mean why can't he use the defence of automatism? As you can't be guilty of automatism because its a defence not a offence.
Can self induced automatism be used as a defence for basic intent crimes
No it can not be used for basic intent crimes as basic intent means that d intended the outcome or was reckless as to whether the outcome occurred. Someone who gets voluntarily intoxicated is at the very least reckless.
So they have the MR for a basic intent crime. Voluntarily intoxication can be used of specific intent crimes only if it can be shown that the intoxication essentially prevented D from intending the crime.
So self induced automatism can never be used
Yes. It can in crimes where only intention is sufficient. So if someone is so drunk they could not have intended the outcome this could be a defence. However, the key point is intent. If it is clear that someone formed the intent before getting drunk or had the intention despite being drunk they can still be found guilty. I hope that makes sense
@@TheLawBank yes it does it I just wanted to know when it could be used thank you!
Let’s say someone got voluntarily high and as a result of being high the had hallucinations which caused them to believe a person was a snake. It cannot be said they intended to kill a person because in their hallucination they thought they were killing a snake so they did not have the men’s rea for murder. So this means that intoxication (even thought it is voluntary) can be used as a defence for murder because murder requires intention to kill a person. However, this person could be prosecuted for manslaughter because recklessness is part of the MR of this offence. So voluntary intoxication can be used when only intention is enough.
However, is D knows they hallucinate and become dangerous violent and gets high with the purpose of killing someone they cannot use the voluntary intoxication as a defence because they have the intention to kill despite being drunk.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Lipman
Sorry about typos answering from a phone
please upload a lecture on rape
I am sorry. This is not covered in the A level curriculum. ☹️
However there is a lecture planned on the defence of consent, which explores a lot of cases that involve sexual assault and rape.
@@TheLawBank where is it ?