Criminal law (2022): Defenses to liability: Automatism (law) (Part One)

In criminal law, automatism is a rarely used criminal defense. It is one of the mental condition defenses that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability (unconsciousness) or excuse. Automatism means that the defendant was not aware of his or her actions when making the particular movements that constituted the illegal act.

For example, Esther Griggs in 1858 threw her child out of a first floor window believing that the house was on fire, while having a sleep terror. In 2002, Peter Buck, lead guitarist of the band R E M, was cleared of several charges, including assault, which resulted from automatism brought on by a bad interaction between alcohol and sleeping pills. In a 2009 case in Aberporth in west Wales, Brian Thomas strangled his wife in their camper van, also during a sleep terror, when he mistook his wife for an intruder. The defense of automatism is denying that the person was acting in the sense that the criminal law demands. As such it is really a denial-of-proof – the defendant is asserting that the offense is not made out. The prosecution does not have to disprove the defense as is sometimes erroneously reported; the prosecution has to prove all the elements of the offense including the voluntary act requirement. Automatism is a defense even against strict liability crimes like dangerous driving, where no intent is necessary.

There are several limitations to the defense of automatism in English law. Prior fault generally excludes automatism. Intoxication generally excludes automatism, even when involuntary. Any defense that rests on insanity comes under the M'Naghten rules. Under English law internal causes of automatism are generally judged to be insane automatism and so result in the special verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity) rather than simple acquittal.

Scope.

Automatism is arguably the only defense that excludes responsibility by negating the existence of the actus reus which uniquely allows it to be a defense to both conventional and strict liability offenses (although this argument could be extended to the status defense of insanity, too). Strict automatism is a denial of actus reus and therefore most commonly used as a defense against strict liability offenses. There are a number of reasons why a person may go into a state of automatism, including dissociation or hypo or hyperglycemia. Unconsciousness is the defense of denial of mens rea, which is easier to prove and hence more commonly used for non-strict liability crimes. For example, in cases of homicidal sleepwalking the illegal act is typically not denied but the intent to kill is. The defendant will typically be perplexed and confused and will not cover up the episode. Kenneth Parks, after killing his mother-in-law and severely injuring his father-in-law, drove to the police station stating that he thought he had killed some people. The person's movements seem purposeful - the sleepwalker interacts with their environment in a limited way. Nonetheless the sleepwalker is not conscious of their actions. The use of the term "automatism" for these situations causes some confusion, as in these cases it is really the lack of intent on the part of the defendant which denies the mens rea of the offense rather than the actus reus (although this distinction is problematic in many instances), better called "unconsciousness". Intention is a problem in crimes of strict liability. Very few people intend to crash their vehicles, so clearly something better than intent is required to define automatism.

--- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support