Automatism, Mental Health Issues, and a Defence of Diminished Responsibility as Possible Defences - Case Study Example

Introduction When dealing with the above scenario the areas of law that require examination are automatism and mental health issues. A defence of diminished responsibility might also be bale to be raised as both have a history of mental health issues. In order to be able to advise the parties as to any defences that might be available it is necessary to look at past case law in this area to determine whether either of the parties should be allowed to rely on evidence of their medical condition as a defence for the attacks. In proving the assault the courts would have to prove intent on the part of the defendants. The use of such defences of automatism or mental health issues would essentially show that the defendant did not have the requisite mens rea for the offence at the time of the attack. The parties might also be able to show that the amount of alcohol they had consumed impacted on their medical condition such that they were unaware of their actions. It is also necessary to consider whether there would be any other defences available to the parties if Fred had admitted to putting an ecstasy tablet in their drinks as well as any charges that Fred might face for his actions. Automatism Automatism was defined in the case of Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland1 as "connoting the state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing ... It means unconscious involuntary action, and it is a defence because the mind does not go with what is being done." Lord Denning also made the comment in this case that “No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context…means an act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind such as a spasm, a reflex action or a convulsion; or an act done by a person who is not conscious of what he is doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or whilst sleepwalking…” In Attorney-Generals Reference (No 2 of 1992)2 the LCJ made the observation that .....the defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendants part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough. It was held by the court in this case that driving without awareness was insufficient to prove automatism. The evidential burden In relying on the defence of automatism the burden of proof is on the defence. Non-insane automatism cannot be claimed if the defence is asserting that the person reacted in the manner they did because a disease caused their mind to malfunction. The courts have allowed non-insane automatism as a defence where the impairment of the mind is a temporary condition. This might occur if the accused has received a blow to the head or from the effects of medical treatment such as prescribed medication. Where the defence is relying on the consumption of drugs or alcohol the courts will usually not entertain such assertions as the condition of the accused is regarded as self-induced3. If the accused is relying on the defence of automatism on the grounds of a disease then it is usual to raise a defence of insanity. The burden on the prosecution Where a defence of automatism or insanity is raised it then becomes the burden of the prosecution to disprove this assertion. In the case of R v Issit4 the prosecution were able to prove that the malfunctioning of the mind of the defendant was not caused by automatism or insanity. This was partly due to the fact that the defendant had not lost total control. Automatism induced by alcohol or drugs The courts have rarely accepted the defence of automatism when the accused is claiming that alcohol consumption or the taking of drugs had impaired their mental faculties. In most cases intoxication is self induced and the courts take the view that the accused has been reckless in consuming too much alcohol. Under the rules of basis intent recklessness is regarded as the mens rea for an offence. In R v Tandy (1988)5 the court found that an abnormality of mind could be established as being caused by a disease where long-term alcoholism or drug taking can be shown. In this case Tandy was an alcoholic and claimed diminished responsibility on the strength of this. The Court of Appeal held that in this instance the drinking could be construed as causing the defendant to have diminished responsibility but also pointed out to the jury that such a finding could only be used as a defence if they were satisfied that the first drink of the day was an involuntary act on the part of the defendant as a result of his alcoholism. In R v Lipman (1969)6 the defendant after taking LSD imagined he was being attacked and to save himself crammed eight inches of sheet down the victims’ throat killing her. In this case the court held that he was to be acquitted of murder as the jury could not be sure of his intention to kill due to his intoxication. He was however found guilty of manslaughter. Similarly in R v Sheehan & Moore [1975]7 the court found the defendants guilty of manslaughter as opposed to murder as intention was difficult to prove due to their intoxication of alcohol. In some cases the defence of automatism has been allowed where the defence can show that the action or inaction of the defendant caused him to act in that manner. This has been used in cases where diabetics have not eaten properly after taking insulin. The prosecution have managed to defeat this defence in some instances by proving that the defendant must have known that failing to eat after taking insulin was likely to make him aggressive8. The case of R v Bailey (1983)9 involves an issue were self induced automatism was not recognised as a defence. In this particular case the defendant tried to claim that he committed the assault whilst in a hypoglycaemic condition. The court held that self induced automatism is not a defence were there is evidence that the defendant was reckless. In this case the defendant had failed to eat after taking insulin thereby bringing on the hypoglycaemic episode. In R v Quick & Another 10 Lawton, L.J. said: "A malfunctioning of the mind of transitory effect caused by the application to the body of some external factor such as violence, drugs, including anaesthetics, alcohol and hypnotic influences cannot fairly be said to be due to disease. Such malfunctioning, unlike that caused by a defect of reason from disease of the mind, will not always relieve an accused from criminal responsibility.....In this case Quicks alleged mental condition, if it ever existed, was not caused by his diabetes but by his use of the insulin prescribed by his doctor. Such malfunctioning of his mind as there was, was caused by an external factor and not by a bodily disorder in the nature of a disease which disturbed the working of his mind. It follows in our judgment that Quick was entitled to have his defence of automatism left to the jury and that Bridge J.s ruling as to the effect of the medical evidence called by him was wrong." If the offence was committed under the influence of prescribed medication it could be argued that the defendant is not responsible for his actions, and a defence of automatism11 might be raised. In order to raise this as a defence the accused would have to prove that the side effects of the medication could cause him to react in the manner he did. The accused would also have to show that he had taken the medication in the prescribed manner and had not exceeded the prescribed dosage. If the accused had taken more than the prescribed dosage the court would be likely to infer that the automatism has been self induced12. Diminished responsibility Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 deals with the area of diminished responsibility and states Where a person kills or is party to the killing of another, he shall not be convicted of murder if he was suffering from such abnormality of mind (whether arising from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind or any inherent causes or induced by disease or injury) as substantially impaired his mental responsibility for his acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing. In order to establish such a defence the accused would have to first prove that a reasonable person would consider his state of mind to be abnormal13. An abnormality of mind has been held to cover severe shock or depression14. Causes of the abnormality usually excluded abnormalities caused by drink or drugs. The burden of proof to establish diminished responsibility is on the defendant on a balance of probabilities by calling evidence from at least 2 medical experts to prove the assertion to be correct. Defence of insanity In Hill v Baxter15 Devlin J commented that the defence of automatism cannot be used where if the disorder is due to a disease. In this case Devlin J stated “For the purposes of the criminal law there are two categories of mental irresponsibility, one where the disorder is due to disease and the other where it is not. The distinction is not an arbitrary one. If disease is not the cause, if there is some temporary loss of consciousness arising accidentally, it is reasonable to hope that it will not be repeated and that it is safe to let an acquitted man go entirely free. But if disease is present, the same thing may happen again and therefore, since 1800, the law has provided that persons acquitted on this ground should be subject to restraint.” Problems occur where the defence of insanity is used instead of automatism as a finding of insanity can lead to the indefinite detention of the defendant. A successful plea of automatism will not result in indefinite detention. The leading case on insanity is MNaghtens case16. From this case the M’Naghten’s rules came into existence and are still used today to determine insanity cases. Under these rules the court will still regard the defendant as punishable if he knew at the time that he was acting contrary to law. In the application of these rules the jurors should be instructed that every man is to be presumed to be sane. and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes, until the contrary be proved to their satisfaction: and that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the act the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or as not to know that what he was doing was wrong. Involuntary intoxication This can occur where the drink of the accused has been spiked by another. In the case of D.P.P.-v- John Reilly17 the judge commented “By voluntary consumption of alcohol I mean taking a drink when one chose to take it and had a free choice about taking it or not. That contrasts with the situation where your drink is spiked. The situation about drink is that intoxication is not a defence in the criminal law. It is incapable of amounting to a defence but it is material to the question of intent. …. The courts have held that involuntary intoxication can only be used to disprove mens rea18 and cannot be used as a general defence for a criminal action. In order for involuntary intoxication to be relied upon the accused must have been so intoxicated that it would have been impossible for him to have the mens rea for the offence. Conclusion Having examined the possible defences to the charges it can be concluded that Albert and Belinda would probably have to rely on a defence of insanity or diminished responsibility. It is unlikely that either would succeed on a defence of automatism due to the amount of alcohol they had consumed as the courts are likely to regard this as self induced. If Belinda can prove that it was the effect of the strobe lights that caused her to react the way she did she might be able to claim automatism. The courts would, however, take into consideration the fact the Belinda knew that strobe lights could affect her in this manner and therefore could conclude that she was reckless by going into the club with the strobe lights. The courts would be unlikely to make an allowance for the fact that Belinda was too drunk to notice the warning about the strobe lights as the intoxication was self induced. With regard to the actions of Fred the two accused might be able to claim involuntary intoxication, however, as mentioned above this can only be used to negate the mens rea for the offence and can only be relied upon if the person is incapbale of forming intent. Bibliography Allen, C, Practical Guide to Evidence, 2nd Ed, 2001, Cavendish Publishing Ashworth, A and Blake, M The presumption of innocence in English law [1996] Crim LR 306 Cook, K, James, M, and Lee, R, Core Statutes on Criminal Law, 2006-2007, Law Matters Publishing Elliott, C & Quinn, F, Criminal Law, 3rd Ed, 2000, Pearson Education Glanville Williams, Textbook of Criminal Law, 2nd Ed, 1983, London: Stevens & Sons Glazebrook, P R, Statutes on Criminal Law, 10th Ed, 2001, Blackstone Press Limited Herring, J, Criminal Law, 4th Ed, 2005, Palgrave Macmillan Law Masters Huxley, P, & O’Connell, M, Statutes on Evidence, 5th Ed, Blackstone’s Inns of Court School of Law, Criminal Litigation & Sentencing, 2003, Oxford University Press Law Commission (1992) Intoxication and Criminal Liability. Consultation Paper No. 127, London: Stationery Office. Legislating the Criminal Code: Corruption, Law Commission Report 145 (1997) Mackay, R. D. (1995) Mental Condition Defences in the Criminal Law, pp. 180–214. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Mackay, R. D. (1999) Crim LR 105 at 121. Murphy, P, Blackstone’s Criminal Practice, 2002, Oxford University Press Smith, J.C. and Hogan, B, Criminal Law, 7th Ed, 2002, London: Butterworths Smith & Hogan, Criminal Law, 2005 11th Ed, Oxford University Press Smith. J C, The presumption of innocence (1987) NILQ 223 Tadros, V and Tierney, S [2004] Presumption of innocence and the Human Rights Act 67 MLR 402  Taylor, P. J. & Kopelman, M. D. (1984) Amnesia for criminal offences. Psychological Medicine, 14, 581–588 Table of Cases Attorney-Generals Reference (No 2 of 1992) 97 Cr App R 429, 434 Bratty v Attorney General of Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, [1961] 3 All ER 523, [1961] UKHL 3 D.P.P.-v- John Reilly [2004] IECCA 9 Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 QB 277, 285–286 MNaghtens case [1843] UKHL J16 (19 June 1843) R v Bailey (1983)1 WLR 760; [1983] 2 All ER 503 R v Bailey 77 Cr App R 76 R v Byrne [1960] 2 QB 396 R v Hobson [1997] Crim LR 759 R v Issit 67 Cr App R 44 R v Kingston [1994] 3 All ER 353, HL R v Lipman (1969) [1970] 1 QB 152; [1969] 3 WLR 819 R v Quick & Another [1973] EWCA Crim 1 (18 April 1973); (1973) Q.B. 910 R v Sheehan & Moore [1975]1 WLR 739 R v Sullivan [1984]AC 156, CA R v Sullivan 77 Cr App R 176 R v Tandy (1988) 87 Cr App R 45 Table of Statutes Homicide Act 1957 Read More