Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Topic 13: Defences (Automaism (Definition
R v Quick
A '…
Topic 13: Defences
Automaism
Definition
R v Quick
A 'malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect caused by the application to the body of some external factor such as violence, drugs, including anaesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic influeces cannot fairly be said to be due to disease'
If act involuntary, defence of automatism may be open
Bratty v AG for NI
For defence to be raised it must be clear the action of accused was done with his body without any control of his mind
Epilepsy
Application of Ellis: SC ruled that an epileptic fit made a person act involuntarily, and o as an automaton
BUT fit disclosed evidence of supervening illness which gave rise to defence of insanity
- Only external factors can give rise to defence
Loss of control over one's actions must be total
- Partial control will mean defence not available
- O'Brien v Parker
Diabetic
R v Quick: admin of insulin injection, necessitated by diabetes, was an external factor and so appropriate defence= automatism
- ignored the reason for injection which was internal
R v Hennessy: Accused had hyperglycaemia
- An internal factor, unaffected by any external factor such as an injection
- Appropriate defence was insanity due o the sugar affecting the accused's mind
Bailey: Here the accused took insulin but failed to eat properly after doing so- his sugar levels too low- known as hypogycycaemia
- While in this state he committed an assault
Held; Accused had available to him the defence of automatism
- Would be successful unless the prosecution could prove he was reckless in failing to eat properly in that he foresaw the risk of losing consciousness or becoming aggressive but disregarded it
It may be that a person in a disassociative state can rely on defence of automatism
R v Falconer: Accused afraid of her husband
- He had assaulted her and sexually molested her two daughters
- Extremely afraid of him and shot him- later could not remember doing so
- found by medical examiners to be in a disasscoiative state and had no real control over her actions
Defence should be left to jury in circumsance such as theseMajor psychological blow may similarly result in defence being open
However- R v Stone:
States that it may be better to view such a psychological incident as arising from a disease of the mindR v Rabey: Held- accused was in a disassociative state when he assaulted woman who rejected him
- Ordinary stresses and strains of life do not form an external factor to ground defence of automatism, appropriate defence= insanity
- Also held to be law in Quick and Hennessy
- On the facts a defence of insanity held appropriate, but that did not mean all disassociative states will be treated as such
Necessity
Choice of two evils
- Commission of crime by accused to avoid infliction of a greater evil
3 Limb test for necessity set out in Australian case of *R v Loughnan
- The criminal act must have been done to avoid certain consequences which would otherwise have inflicted irreparable evil upon the accused or upon others which he is bound to protect
- The accused must honestly believe on reasonable grounds that he was placed in a situation of immediate peril
- The act done to avoid the imminent peril mist be proportionate to the peril to be avoided
-
First Limb: Consequence/ threat to be avoided
- Loughnan: Included threat of death
- approved decision of Californian Court of Appeal
- People v Lovercamp: threat to be avoided must be a threat of death, sexual attack or serious bodily harm
Second Limb: Imminent Peril
Loughnan: Did not elaborate on the requirement of imminent peril
- Noted- if interval of time between the threat and its expected execution it will be very rarely if ever that defence of necessity can succeed
Third Limb: Proportionality Requirement
The crime committed must be proportionate to the threat to be avoided
Loughnan: court stated the test required the following qu to be addressed
- Would a reasonable man in the position of the accused have considered that he had any alternative to doing what he did to avoid the peril
- If a reasonable man would have considered that there was an alternative course of action open to the accused, the D cannot rely on defence of necessity
Scope of Defence
Successfully raised in a number of common law jurisdictions for a number of offences
- US: prisoner escaping prison to avoid being raped
R v Conway: D charged w reckless driving
- Two young men, in civiilian clothes came running towards car, in which he had a passenger who had been the target of shooting shorly before
- Car chased by men in civilian clothes, at which point D drove recklessly
Issue; Transpired pursuers= police offciers seeking to arrest passenger
Held: Defence of necessity should have been left to jury
- Defence of necessity could be invoked notwithstanding fact the threat directed at a third party and notwithstanding the fact the D labouring under mistaken
R v Quayle: Concerned number of Ds charged with growing, possessing and importing cannabis for purposes of pain relief
- Claimed they relied on drug out of necessity to alleviate suffering
Held; Threat to be avoided was entirely subjective and in order for he defence to be available the treat to be avoided must be capable of objective scrutiny by a judge and jury
- Ds failed to satisfy the test for necessity as the threat not accompanied by imminent physical danger
Necessity and Murder
R v Dudley and Stevens: Necessity not available as a defence to murder
- Followed by H of L in Howe- represents current attitude of English courts
Exception
Medical necessity
Re A (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation)
English C of A held it ws an act of necessity to separate conjoined twins where one was sure to die within minutes of separation but without the operation both would die within a matter of months
- Hospital treating babies sought declaration it could lawfully carry out surgery, in absence of consent from Twins' parents
- Distinguished from Dudley and Stephens
- No need to compare value of two lives here
- Divorce of law from morality does not apply here
Irish SC also accepted necessity can justify an abortion in AG v X- permitted abortion only when there was a real and substantial risk to life of the mother