Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Automatism - Coggle Diagram
Automatism
Broome v Perkins [1987]
Held to not be able to use the defence as despite driving erratically while suffering from low blood sugar leaves, D was guilty as he had conscious control of the vehicle by avoiding crashing with other cars
R v Quick [1973]
Held that if D suffered from low blood sugar, they could use the defence as it caused the insulin, which is an external factor, and not the diabetes, which is an internal factor
-
R v T [1990]
D was raped and then was charged with robbery. D used defence as she said she was in a dream like state from PTSD meaning she was in a Disociative State. Despite rape being an external factor, and that acting in a dream could be automatism, D was found guilty
R v Antoniuk (1995)
D stabbed V but D argued she was responsible for her actions as she was raped by D and suffering from automatism from the shock. The jury found D not guilty
-
If act induced by alcohol or illegal drugs, not a defence as it's voluntary intoxication
-
-
-
-
-
-
AG Reference (no 2 1992) - Held that defence should not be left to the jury to decide. Held that impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough