automatism
defence
external blow means no longer in control of body
some medical required to make it an issue
Bratty v AG Northern Ireland trangled girlfiend, said terrible blackness, not left open to jury
different to insanity which is internal
external - R v Rabey
epilepsy
R v Quick diabetic, took insulin, low blood sugar due to small lunch, automatism arguable as due to external event (small lunch)
R v Hennessy too much sugar, needed insulin but didn't take it, not able to plead automatism - prone to reoccur and internal event
R v sullivan epileptic fit, lashed out at person who came over to help him, had to go for insanity as ongoing internal problem
self-induced
R v Bailey argument, then takes sugar and water, comes back and hits person, jury should been allowed to consider it - but gound guilty - can't be aware of risk creating and proceeding anyways
what blow is sufficient
R v T woman robbed 2 handbags and stabbed person blamed it on PTSD due to rape - rape was an external factor - up to jury to decide if it caused her behaviour
Rabey v R came across journal of woman in class, saying no man in class attrractive, says he doesn't remember assaulting her - any blow was psychological - and part of life - not sufficient
R v Falconer australian case, woman abused, discovered children abused, moved out, he came back and hit her, said he'd be back, sexually assaulter her, she shot him - psychological evidence could be used for automatism - should be left to jury
sleepwalking
at one point though external actually internal according to R v Burgesss could happen every night - was insanity
irresistible impulse
R v Burr got tarot death card, in debt, obsessed with it murders person - convicted of murder
loss of control must be total destruction O'Brien v Parker
strict liability
R v Whooley sneezing can cause loss of control
Hill v Baxter blacked out while driving drove through stopped sign - CA defence to strict liability
Broom v Perkins diabetic, claimed not aware of what was doing - court - care driven for several miles so had some control - automatism not open
internal factors can't include alcohol, drugs - R v Quick
intoxication
generally not a defence
may be factor aggravating or mitigating in sentencing
beck and park court may look to diffferentiate between innocent and guilty offender - could affect mens rea
no distinction yet made by parliament
murder
murder had mens rea to kill or cause serious injury so could potentially reduce murder to manslaughter
peole v manning self-induced - drank 8 pints of stout, drink only defence if render person incapable of knowing what they are doing or potential consequences
unclear if defence in Ireland -
extremely drunk
daviault akin to automatism or insantiy
Majewski approach - self-induced intoxciation defence to specific intent but not defence to basic intent
basic intent crime manslaughter, rape, ,kidnapping, false imprisonemnt - recklessness is the intent
R v Caldwell not a defence to crimes of basic intent
specific intent - murder, theft, robbery, indecent assault, attempted assault 0 unable to form specific intent
O'Connor approach
R v O'Connor australia - self-induced intoxciation could be defence to any crime
Irish approach
DOO v McBride no actual evidence drunk at the time, but intoxcication not a defence to manslaughter
DPP v Murphy drunk and on drugs, went to island, sent house on fire, convicted of manslaughter - appeal unsuccessful - told luck to avoid murder
DPP v Reilly voluntary intoxication not a defence to manslaughter - placed yourself in position more likely to be violent
potentially defence for murder
dutch courage - can't get drunk deliberately to commit a crime - AG for northern ireland v gallagher
innocent intoxication
R v Kingston accused paedophilia tendancies, someone spiked his drink, more likely to give into temptation - english court - not a defencce - not drunk enough to lose control - although in other cases innocent intoxciation would be a defence
LRC is a defence, but be intoxicated to extent lack full mental capacities
LRC
intoxication never a defence
can be aggravating or mitigating sentencing factor
recommends of creating offence of criminal act while intoxicated
LRC innocent intoxication is a defence