Automatism even if it is self induced can be a defense to basic intent crimes i.e. crimes where the mens rea that is required to secure a conviction is either negligence or recklessness).
In R v Bailey (1983) the defendant a diabetic went over to the house of his ex-lover’s new partner (victim), clearly upset over the fact that his ex-girlfriend had moved on. The victim invited the defendant in to discuss the matter, and the defendant who had taken his insulin but had not consumed any food, prior to the visit, felt that he was going into hypoglycemic, a state caused by a lack of glucose in the body and asked the victim for a glass of sugared water and upon drinking the water, the defendant was about to leave. As he was about to step out, he dropped his glove, and the victim bent over to pick it up and while he was doing so, the defendant hit him over the head with an iron bar.
The defendant was charged under s.18 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) and the defendant countered by stating that he had no control of his actions, having at that stage succumbed to hypoglycemia and raised the defense of automatism. The trial judge ruled that automatism, self-induced or otherwise is not a defense or a mitigating factor when it comes to basic intent crimes and the jury convicted accordingly. The defendant appealed.
The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction and ruled that while there may have been a misdirection, it was not sufficient to render the conviction unsafe.
It was decided that self-induced automatism, other than that due to intoxication, i.e. automatism that arises from excessive drinking or from the use of drugs, may be a defense in basic intent crimes.
Copyright © 2018 by Dyarne Ward