Complete Loss Of Control-Automatism

Front 1

Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (meaning of involuntary)

Back 1

An act which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind

Front 2

Hill v Baxter (meaning of involuntary)

Back 2

They spoke about if you were attacked by a swarm of bees and you swerved your car. They also spoke about if you were suddenly affected by a blinding pain or if your car suffered a mechanical failure. However if there is any evidence of prior fault, the opportunity to plead automatism will be denied.

Front 3

Isitt (complete loss of control)

Back 3

D was involved in a car accident. He drove away from the scene and for a period of time, he evaded the police and police road block. When caught and arrested, he claimed he had no memory of what he was doing and that his subconscious mind had taken over. The court said that on the evidence there was no complete loss of control as the driving to avoid the police/road block was purposeful.

Front 4

Broome v Perkins (complete loss of control)

Back 4

Defendant claiming to be suffering from a hypoglycaemic episode when he was involved in a car accident. He was charged with driving without due care and attention. When evidence was brought to court there was evidence that he had braked to avoid collision and that on one occasion he veered his car out of the way of another. Hypoglycaemia is caused by an external factor so automatism should, in theory, be available to the complainant but it wasn't in this case as there was no complete loss of control.

'His actions were only involuntary at intervals and at times his mind must have been controlling his limbs. It is necessary to show that D was exercising no control over his actions.'

Front 5

AG's Reference (no 2 of 1992) (complete loss of control)

Back 5

Court reaffirmed that we are talking about a total loss of voluntary control despite the fact that people were complaining it was too rigid

Front 6

Coley (complete loss of control)

Back 6

D was convicted of murder. He was a 17yr old boy who had been watching violent video games all afternoon and had been smoking cannabis. He went into his neighbours house, dressed in dark clothing wearing a balaclava and attacked his neighbour with a hunting knife. Expert evidence suggested he was suffering from a brief psychotic episode caused by his voluntary intoxication from cannabis. Experts said he may have been delusional at the time of the stabbing and believed his was in the video game. Insanity was not applicable because he voluntarily took the intoxicant and the court rejected the automatism argument because the essence of automatism is that the movements D took where wholly involuntary.