Latest News
Back
AUTOMATISM AS A DEFENSE IN CRIMINAL LAW
There are many defenses available to an offender who has committed a crime and out of those defenses one such defense is ‘Automatism’. This defense is available to a person in a situation where the defendant claims that the action(s) which were alleged to have been committed by him, he had no control over his actions. This term does not refer to an illness or some state of mind in particular but is a term that is used in situations where a person lost his consciousness and/or was unconscious during the happening of the act for which he has been framed.
The happening of a crime depends upon two essential ingredients i.e. Mens Rea and Actus Reus but when the defense of automatism is applied then one of them gets negated. When this defense is applied, it becomes important to prove that the person did not perform the act with any intention whatsoever and there was no control of the person on his senses and whatever he did, he did so involuntarily and thus such action is not considered a crime per se.
In situations where a person fails to register the consequences of his actions due to some mental illness he is ailing from then it is known as insane automatism. The person due to his mental insufficiency fails to maintain a difference between what is a fantasy and what is real and thus loses his ability to differentiate between what is right and what is wrong. Thus the insane person is saved from criminal liability. But in order to utilize this defense, it is essential to prove in a court of law that the person is legally insane. The famous case in this regard is the M’Naghten Case (1843-1860), in this case, the person McNaughton killed a political person and later on it was discovered that he had paranoia about the political party that they would kill him thus he had become delusional and this being proved he was acquitted.
In the judgment it was stated that in order to seek this defense it was essential to prove that the person accused had some mental illness, he was not aware of his act, the nature of it and the result and he was driven by an “irresistible impulse” that he could not resist at the time his impulse to do an act and he was provoked due to some happening.
According to Lord Denning, non-insane automatism is, “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”. In the case of non-insane automatism a person is acquitted because the presence of mens rea is not there, whatever happens, in this case, happens due to some involuntary actions and thus a person is not held criminally-liable. For this defense to be applied it has to be proved that there was no control over the body or the muscles of the defendant, in case there was some control then this defense would not be applied.
An important case in this regard is the case of Broom v. Perkins (1987) in this case a person had a hyperglycemia attack while he was driving a car and his car had an accident due to which charges of careless driving were put on him, but it was, later on, proved he still had some control over his body, thus the defense of non-insane automatism could not be applied, because the defendant had failed to prove involuntary action of his body and muscles. He drove the car for about five miles and thus the Court held that he had some control. Thus this defense is not available in cases where there is even little control.
This defense is used in very rare cases and there is also huge responsibility with regard to the burden of proof thus a defendant has to prove a lot in order to secure his acquittal.
