The Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland certified that their decision involved two points of law of general public importance, namely whether, the defendant’s plea of insanity having been rejected by the jury, it was open to the accused to rely upon a defence of automatism: and, if the answer to (1) be in the affirmative, whether, on the evidence, the defence of automatism should have been left to the jury.
Lord Denning said: ‘No act is punishable if it is done involuntarily: and an involuntary act in this context – some people nowadays prefer to speak of it as ‘automatism’-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 sleep-walking. The point was well put by Stephen J. in 1889: ‘ Can anyone doubt that a man who, though he might’ be perfectly sane, committed what would otherwise be a crime in a state’ of somnambulism, would be entitled to be acquitted? And why is this?’ Simply because he would not know what he was doing’, see Reg. v Tolson. The term ‘ involuntary act is, however, capable of wider connotations: and to prevent confusion it is to be observed that in the criminal law an act is not to be regarded as an involuntary act simply because the doer does not remember it.’ and
‘ Nor is an act to be regarded as an involuntary act simply because it is unintentional or its consequences are unforeseen.’ and ‘Another thing to be observed is that it is not every involuntary act which leads to a complete acquittal. Take first an involuntary act which proceeds from a state of drunkenness. If the drunken man is so drunk that he does not know what he is doing, he has a defence to any charge, such as murder or wounding with intent, in which a specific intent is essential, but he is still liable to be convicted of manslaughter or unlawful wounding for which no specific intent is necessary, see Beard’s case.’
Judges:
Lord Chancellor, Lord Tucker, Lord Denning, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, Lord Hodson
Citations:
[1961] UKHL 3, [1963] AC 386, [1961] 3 All ER 523
Links:
Jurisdiction:
Northern Ireland
Citing:
Followed – Attorney-General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher HL 1961
The defendant appealed against his conviction for the murder of his wife. The court allowed his appeal on the ground of a misdirection. The prosecutor having now appealed, he sought to plead insanity.
Held: The appeal was allowed on the new . .
Disapproved – Regina v Charlson 1955
The defendant father struck his 10 year old son on the head with a mallet , and was charged with three (3) offences of Grievous Harm , two (2) of which required specific intentions to be proved.
Held: The court proceeded on the assumption that . .
Cited by:
Cited – Director of Public Prosecutions v Majewski HL 1976
The defendant took a cocktail of drink and drugs and, whilst intoxicated, assaulted pub landlord. He said that he did not know what he was doing, and had no mens rea, that self-induced intoxication could be a defence to a charge of assault, and that . .
Cited – Regina v Quick CACD 18-Apr-1973
The defendant appealed against his conviction for assault. He had pleaded guilty after a ruling by the judge as to the meaning of the phrase ‘a defect of reason, from disease of the mind’ within the meaning of the M’Naughten Rules. More particularly . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248541
