automotism in criminal proceedings

---

Most criminal offences require an act coupled with the relevant mental intent.  Where an accused can show that although they committed the act of a crime, it was as a result of an involuntary act they may be able to plead the defence of automatism.

Lord Denning in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) described an involuntary act as when it is done ‘by the muscles without any control of the mind’ or ‘by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing’.

Yes, but subject to the facts and circumstances of each case.

There are broadly three types of automatism in criminal cases.  Insane automatism, Non Insane Automatism and self induced automatism.  

The defence of automatism is what is known as a common law defence.  This means that there is no statutory basis.  Accordingly, there is no Act of Parliament that provides a definition or sets out its limits or governs its application. 

Insane automatism can be said to be a result of an internal cause.  Where the defence is successfully pleaded, it will usually result in a finding of insanity and lead to a hospital order.  

There are a number of medical conditions that could rise to the defence of Insane Automatism, including Sleep disorders, Personality disorders, Psychosis, PTSD, 

It has been established that there has to be a complete destruction of voluntary control. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough.  There is some inconsistently in the application of this "rule". In sleepwalking cases, the ability to start a car engine does not seem to raise an issue as to the extent to which the body has lost control ( R v Parks (1992)). 

As a general rule, self-induced intoxication cannot be a defence to an offence requiring basic intent or recklessness.