New Zealand Law/Criminal/Automatism

Definition

An unconscious involuntary act performed without conscious volition.

Cases

R v Cottle

• Held

1. Where intent is an essential ingredient and… a proper foundation has been laid and automatism is consistent with sanity, the accused should be acquitted. But if the automatism is attributable to a disease of the mind, the verdict should be acquittal on acct of insanity.
2. If sane automatism, onus on defence to provide no more than sufficient evidence from which a finding can be based. If insanity, accused must establish.
3. It is for the trial judge to instruct the jury on what constitutes a disease of the mind. It is for the jury to say whether the accused is suffering from a disease of the mind.

• Obiter

1. Prosecution must disprove non-insane automatism beyond reasonable grounds once defence put evidence on which such a finding could be based.
2. Automatism is an action of which the doer is not conscious, a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves a person able to exercise bodily movements.
3. If there is evidence of insanity, judge must put insanity to jury - judge must consider fairness to the defence, public interest.
4. Crown may not adduce evidence of insanity first.

R v Rabey

• Facts

1. Student infatuated with classmate, reads letter in which she calls him a nothing.
2. When she tells him she considers him “a friend”, defendant snaps.

• Held SC of Canada

1. An internal malfunction is a disease of the mind. A transitory external malfunction is not a disease of the mind.
2. Ordinary stresses and disappointments of life are not an external cause. However, a dissociative state caused by viewing, for example, an horrific accident in which loved ones died is external, not a disease of the mind.

Ministry of Transport v Strong

• Facts

1. Driving, defendant hit roundabout.
2. When stopped, refused to take breath test.
3. At trial, claimed automatism.

• Held

1. Strict liability offence.
2. Defence of automatism not available where intent is not an ingredient (ie automatism is subsumed into a defence of due diligence or total absence of fault.)

Police v Bannin

• Facts

1. Schoolboy with Kleine-Levin syndrome
2. Expert said not automatism or disease of mind.

• Held

1. Judge can receive expert evidence but must categorise himself.
2. Automatism and Disease of the Mind are legal not medical terms.
3. If malfunction internal and risk of recurrence high, then the Court is entitled to order treatment.
4. However, it is still necessary to prove that the defendant was not conscious. In this case, there was evidence that the def was aware of important facts and acted intentionally.
5. But prosecution had not proven that the defendant had an intention to commit a crime when he entered.

R v Campbell

• Held

1. A loss of self-control does not mean that the conduct is voluntary (unless automatism – which requires absence of conscious volition).

Burnskey v Police

• Facts

Appellant suffered brain injury at birth, brain “functioned defectively”.

• Held:

1. Not a disease of the mind (but provided foundation for automatism).
2. Impaired consciousness raised possibility of automatism (but note Adams doubts sufficient).

R v Stone (SC of Canada)

• Held (following Rabey).

1. If automatism results from psychological blow, must be presumed to be disease of the mind unless the trigger was:

(a) extremely shocking; or

(b) such that a normal person would have entered a dis-associative state.

2. If the condition is likely to recur, then it is insanity.

3. Suggests defence may sometimes succeeds, but in this case defendant semi-conscious and has some memory.

4. Accused must prove automatism – sane or insane – on the balance of probabilities.

5. For automatism to be considered, defendant must claim and must support with expert evidence.