New Zealand Law/Criminal/Automatism

Definition
An unconscious involuntary act performed without conscious volition.

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.