AUTOMATISM: Legal Immunity for Criminals

Introduction:

Out of several defences in criminal law, it is the very interesting defence to any crime, that can negates criminal liability of the convict against the criminal offence. Automatism is a defence where it shows the uncontrolled actions of the defendant. It is certainly not a state of mind or illness but a term used to represent an act done without willingness or with unconsciousness to fact. In criminal law, the criminal liability is imposed when the person follows these two essentials Actus Reus and Mens Rea along with concurrence of these two. But automatism negates one of these in specific conditions actus reus. In automatism, a person commits an action without any intention to cause harm but then he has no control over his actions and he commits crime involuntarily, so because of not fulfilling this requirement of a crime, the act is considered beyond the ambits of crime. In order to understand the principal of the term, we need to look in every aspect of this term.

Automatism in criminal law is mentioned in two categories:

• Insane automatism
• Non-insane automatism            

Insane automatism

According to criminal law, insane automatism is action caused due to mental illness. Where the person is unable to judge the aftermath of his actions due to mental insufficiency, where he don’t have any idea that his actions can cause any social damages or not. The person is to be treated as insane where he can’t differentiate between reality and fantasy and failed to distinguish between right or wrong. So the insane person is not subjected to criminal liability and it negates Actus reus.

But to prove insane automatism it’s necessary to prove legal insanity before the court. And there are different procedures are suggested in different states to prove legal insanity.

The “M’Naghten rule”: according to M’Naghten’s case (1843-1860)[1] the defendant (McNaughton) was convicted of killing political figure.

But it was discovered that he was paranoid that the political party were trying to kill him. So as the medical experts declared that he was insanely delusional. And he acquitted.

As judgement passed, they stated that a jury has to confirm whether, at time of committing the crime:

1. The accused was acting under a disease of the mind.
2. Did not aware of his act’s nature and result.
3. The “Irresistible impulse”: according to this, a crime constituted by the person due to a sudden impulse and because of his insanity he can’t resist its outcome and commits a crime. In this, it is considered as provocation due to circumstances and the person overperform due to his insane behaviour.

Non-insane Automatism

Lord Denning in case of Bratty vs. Attorney general of Northern Ireland [(1963) AC 386] defines it as “an act done by muscles without any control by mind or an act done by a person, who is not conscious of what he is doing”.[2] In non-insane automatism, the defendant because of not fulfilling the requirement of mens rea acquitted. The defendant’s involuntary actions result in the happening of crime and that is beyond the ambit of criminal responsibility, so the criminal liability of the per vanishes. 

In order to prove Non-insane automatism, it’s necessary to prove that there was no control over the body or muscles of the defendant. If there was any control then the defence will fail. There exists an example of such defence in case of Broom v. Perkins [1987][3], in this case, the defendant suffered a diabetic hyperglycaemia attack while driving that caused an accident and he charged with careless driving. But it was discovered that he had little control over his body so the defence failed.  The court held that automatism refers to involuntary action because of the involuntary movement of the limbs or the muscles. The court believed that the car can’t drive itself without having some degree of control over it and the defendant failed to prove involuntary action under the defence of automatism. In this case, we can see that as per the facts of the case that the car was driven for almost 5 miles and that can’t be possible without some degree of control. So if there is little degree of control is there then the act will not consider in Non-insane automatism.  

Conclusion

Automatism is a very rare defence used to negate criminal liability as the measures to prove automatism and the burden of proof is very much. To prove automatism the defendant should make it clear to the court whether it was due to insanity or lack of control over the body. In case of insane automatism, it may be easier to negate criminal liability because the defendant has to prove his insanity only and the burden of proof lies on the part of the doctor to declare defendant as insane. And after proving insanity the important component of crime Actus reus vanishes but in non-insane automatism the burden of proof lies on the part of the defendant and he has to prove it that he was unable to control his action at the time of the crime. And if he proves such condition then he negates Mens rea as the essential component of a crime. His involuntary actions lead to happening of the crime. In some cases due to negation of both component of crime Actus reus and Mens rea the automatism can be proved. The legal system tried to remove every loophole of this defence but still, in some cases, we can observe that even after these measures it acts as the legal immunity to the criminals.  

References:

[1] M’Naghten’s case[1843-1860] ALL ER Rep 229.

[2] Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland[1963] AC 368, [1961] UKHL 3.

[3] Broom v. Perkins [1987] 85 Cr App R 321.