This document contains 10 multiple choice questions about the legal defense of automatism. Automatism refers to involuntary acts that occur without conscious control due to an external factor like a head injury or internal factor like epilepsy. Some key points covered are:
- Automatism can be a complete defense to criminal charges like murder if it results in an acquittal.
- The case of Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland established that an involuntary act due to automatism is not a criminal one.
- For non-insane automatism, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defense, not the defendant to prove it.
- Automatism can be a defense to offenses
This document contains 10 multiple choice questions about the legal defense of automatism. Automatism refers to involuntary acts that occur without conscious control due to an external factor like a head injury or internal factor like epilepsy. Some key points covered are:
- Automatism can be a complete defense to criminal charges like murder if it results in an acquittal.
- The case of Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland established that an involuntary act due to automatism is not a criminal one.
- For non-insane automatism, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defense, not the defendant to prove it.
- Automatism can be a defense to offenses
This document contains 10 multiple choice questions about the legal defense of automatism. Automatism refers to involuntary acts that occur without conscious control due to an external factor like a head injury or internal factor like epilepsy. Some key points covered are:
- Automatism can be a complete defense to criminal charges like murder if it results in an acquittal.
- The case of Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland established that an involuntary act due to automatism is not a criminal one.
- For non-insane automatism, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defense, not the defendant to prove it.
- Automatism can be a defense to offenses
This document contains 10 multiple choice questions about the legal defense of automatism. Automatism refers to involuntary acts that occur without conscious control due to an external factor like a head injury or internal factor like epilepsy. Some key points covered are:
- Automatism can be a complete defense to criminal charges like murder if it results in an acquittal.
- The case of Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland established that an involuntary act due to automatism is not a criminal one.
- For non-insane automatism, the burden of proof is on the prosecution to disprove the defense, not the defendant to prove it.
- Automatism can be a defense to offenses
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 5
AUTOMATISM
Tutorial Questions
1.Which of the following is false on non insane automatism
A.external factor
B.burden of proof on prosecution
C.internal factor
D.if raised successfully results in acquittal
2. Automatism is defined as a condition whereby the movements of a person's body or limbs
are involuntary
A.True
B.False
3. Non insane automatism is an external factor
A.False
B.True
4. What is the significance of the case of Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland(1963)?
A.defendant must be reckless with internal cause
B.Lord Denning defined self defence
C.Sir Edward Coke defined the actus reus of murder
D.Lord Denning defined an involuntary act or automatism
5.Non insane automatism requires
A.partial loss of control
B.complete loss of control
C.partial and complete loss of control
D.complete loss of control and partial reflex action
6.External causes such as blow to the head or the introduction of medication outside the defendants system thus give rise to automatism.
A.True
B.False
7.Which of the following is true following the case of Hill v Baxter?
A.The defendant was in the state of automatism
B.The defendant escaped liability through automatism
C.Defendant caused death through driving
D.The defendant caused death through duress
8.Burden of proof on non insane automatism is on the defendant
A.True
B.False
9.Which of the following statements is TRUE?
A. There is no lower age of criminal liability in English law. B.The effect of s. 34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is that all children aged 10 and above are fully criminally capable. C. Section 34 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provides that if D raises his capacity as an issue, the prosecution must prove D was aware that what he was doing was seriously wrong.
D.The minimum age of criminal capacity in English law is 14.
10. Insanity and automatism (that is insane automatism and non-insane automatism) are similar defences. In which way, from those listed, do they differ? A. D must have had a defect of reason. B. The defect of reason must have been caused by a disease of mind. C. D did not form mens rea. D. D did not know what he was doing.
Automatism 1. Automatism is a ● Specific defence to murder ● General defence
2. In charge of murder, what is the result of a successful plea of the defence of automatism? ● Defendant will be found “not guilty”, and he will be set free into society. ● Defendant will be found “not guilty by reason of insanity”, and the judge has a dispositive discretion to detain him in a mental hospital. ● Defendant will be found not guilty of murder, but will be found guilty of the lesser offence of manslaughter, and the judge has a discretion to sentence him to imprisonment for life or for lesser term.
5. Who bears the burden of proof of proving automatism where the defendant raises the defence of automatism? ● Once the defence adduces evidence to raise the issue of automatism, it is for the prosecutor to prove that the defence of automatism does not apply, in line with Woolmington v DPP. ● The defence must prove legal burden that the defence of automatism applies, in line with Woolmington v DPP.
Automatism (12) 1. Automatism is a defence for which of the following categories of offences? I - offences requiring proof of intention II - offences requiring proof of intention or recklessness III - offences requiring proof of negligence IV - offences not requiring proof of fault ● I only ● I and II ● I, II, and III ● I, II, III, IV
5. A defendant was charged for driving without due care and attention, which does not require proof of a subjective state of mind. At the time of the incident, the defendant had low blood sugar levels due to taking insulin for his diabetes despite taking food. The low blood sugar levels caused his mind to be partly dissociated from reality and caused him to have reduced awareness of what he was doing. When diagnosed with diabetes, his doctor warned him that failure to take food after taking insulin can lead to aggressive, unpredictable or uncontrolled behavior. Is the defendant guilty of the offence? ● Yes, although the defendant’s conduct was partly involuntary, there was no complete destruction of voluntary control ● Yes, because although the defendant’s conduct was involuntary, this was caused by his own fault ● No, because the defendant’s conduct was completely involuntary, the defendant did not commit the actus reus of the offence
● No, although the defendant’s conduct was not completely involuntary, the defendant did not have the mens rea for the offence.
6. A defendant was charged for driving without due care and attention, , which does not require proof of a subjective state of mind. At the time of the incident, the defendant had low blood sugar levels due to not taking any food at all after taking insulin for his diabetes. The low blood sugar levels caused him to lose consciousness completely while driving. When diagnosed with diabetes, his doctor warned him that failure to take food after taking insulin can lead to aggressive, unpredictable or uncontrolled behavior. Is the defendant guilty of the offence? ● Yes, although the defendant’s conduct was partly involuntary, there was no complete destruction of voluntary control ● Yes, although the defendant’s conduct was involuntary, this was caused by his own fault ● No, because the defendant’s conduct was completely involuntary, the defendant did not commit the actus reus of the offence ● No, although the defendant’s conduct was not completely involuntary, the defendant did not have the mens rea for the offence. 9. A defendant was charged with assault contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He hit the victim only because he was threatened by his gang leader to do so. Would the defendant be able to rely on the defence of automatism? ● No, because although the threat is an external factor, his conduct was nonetheless done with the control of his mind. ● Yes, because the threat is an external factor, which comes under the defence of automatism. ● No, because the threat is an internal factor, which comes under the defence of insanity.
10. A defendant was charged for assault contrary to s 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. At the time of the incident, the defendant had high blood sugar levels due to insufficient insulin caused by diabetes. The high blood sugar levels caused his mind to be partly dissociated from reality and caused him to have reduced awareness of what he was doing. He was unaware that there was anyone near him at the time of the incident. Would the defendant be able to rely on the defence of automatism? ● No, because although the threat is an external factor, his conduct was nonetheless done with the control of his mind. ● Yes, because the threat is an external factor, which comes under the defence of automatism. ● No, because the threat is an internal factor, which comes under the defence of insanity.
