Criminal
Automatism is a plea by a defendant that his/her actions were involuntary, that was not under the control of their conscious mind. This can be the result of loss of physical control, for example, a push by a third party. [R v Kemp [1957]
Sane automatism arises where the automatism is caused by an external factor such as hypoglycaemia, concussion caused by a blow to the head, alcohol or drugs. [Quick 1973] Automatism may equally arise due to disease of the mind, this is known as insane automatism which results in a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The defence of non-insane automatism, if successfully pleaded, acts as a complete defence absolving the defendant of all criminal liability. It differs from the defence of insane automatism in that there is no power to detain in a mental hospital neither may any other order be made against the defendant. The defence of non-insane automatism exists where a person commits a crime in circumstances where their actions can be said to be involuntary. This could be where for example an involuntary natural reaction occurs such as sneezing or being chased by a swarm of bees. A finding of non-insane automatism may also exist where the defendant is not conscious of their actions due to an external factor often as a result of medication. The essential difference between insane and non-insane automatism is that for insane automatism the defect of reason must be caused by an internal factor whereas for non-insane automatism the involuntary action must be caused by an external factor.
In scenario 1 Mario, who suffers from delusions and hears voices telling him to do things. By this, it could be established that Mario is a schizophrenic. Therefore, Mario setting fire to the van parked outside the block of flats because of voices in his head telling him to do so is the sort of disease for which a person should be detained in hospital rather than be given an unqualified acquittal. Mario will be successful with his
Sane automatism arises where the automatism is caused by an external factor such as hypoglycaemia, concussion caused by a blow to the head, alcohol or drugs. [Quick 1973] Automatism may equally arise due to disease of the mind, this is known as insane automatism which results in a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. The defence of non-insane automatism, if successfully pleaded, acts as a complete defence absolving the defendant of all criminal liability. It differs from the defence of insane automatism in that there is no power to detain in a mental hospital neither may any other order be made against the defendant. The defence of non-insane automatism exists where a person commits a crime in circumstances where their actions can be said to be involuntary. This could be where for example an involuntary natural reaction occurs such as sneezing or being chased by a swarm of bees. A finding of non-insane automatism may also exist where the defendant is not conscious of their actions due to an external factor often as a result of medication. The essential difference between insane and non-insane automatism is that for insane automatism the defect of reason must be caused by an internal factor whereas for non-insane automatism the involuntary action must be caused by an external factor.
In scenario 1 Mario, who suffers from delusions and hears voices telling him to do things. By this, it could be established that Mario is a schizophrenic. Therefore, Mario setting fire to the van parked outside the block of flats because of voices in his head telling him to do so is the sort of disease for which a person should be detained in hospital rather than be given an unqualified acquittal. Mario will be successful with his