This article is written by TS Sneha, a student from NUALS, Kochi. In this article, the author has explained the defence of non-insane automatism in detail.

Introduction

The defence of non-insane automatism can be pleaded when the defendant commits a crime under involuntary circumstances. If pleaded successfully, it can lead to the complete acquittal of the accused. There is an external factor/ stimuli that take control of the actions of the person, for instance, sneezing or being chased by bees. And the involuntary action results from the external factor, unlike in sane-automatism where an internal factor controls the action of the wrongdoer. 

Non-insane is defined as “Unconscious involuntary conduct caused by some external factor where there is no claim of Insanity. A person is not criminally liable for acts carried out in a state of non-insane automatism, since his conduct is altogether involuntary”, in Hill v Baxter.  In Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, Lord Denning defines non-insane automatism as, “An act, which is done by the muscles without any control by the mind, or an act done by a person, who is not conscious of what he is doing.”

In the case of R v. Sullivan, the defendant attacked his friend when he was recovering from an epileptic seizure, and he pleaded the defence of non-insane automatism. The judge, however, ruled that the circumstances proved it was a case of Insanity and the accused was later let out with a lesser punishment for assault. In the above case, even though the Court of Appeal and House of Lords questioned the legality of lesser punishment vetted out to the wrongdoer, they did not have an alternate decision with respect to the defence of plea.         

In R v.T, T took part in a robbery, and she claimed defence under Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) from rape. The jury considered her actions to have occurred due to non-insane automatism and ruled out that she didn’t have the mens rea and that an external factor (a condition of mind) led to her committing a robbery.

The case mentioned above and various other cases paved the way for non-insane automatism since the scope of criminal law needed to be expanded. 

Some Other Instances of Non-insane Automatism and Case Laws

Some situations where the defence of non-insane automatism could be pleaded are:

• Hypoglycaemia;
• Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD);
• Epilepsy;
• Sleep-walking;
• A spasm or reflex action;
• Arteriosclerosis;
• Sneezing and;
• Being chased by a swarm of bees.

The situation involving sneezing has been discussed in R v Whoolley, and the cases involving hypoglycaemia has been discussed in various cases like R v Quick and R v Bingham. 

The case of R v. Whoolley deals with a situation where the defendant knocks into the car in front of him in traffic, which in-turn knocks into 7 other cars, leading to a domino effect. The jury rightly decided that the action was involuntary and was caused due to an external factor; hence the defendant did not have control over his actions. He was acquitted.

In R v. Quick, the appellant, a nurse at one of the hospitals attacked one of the patients during his duty, and the patient suffered injuries from the same. The defence of the appellant was that he was hypoglycaemic while he attacked the patient. In addition to this, the appellant had also consumed alcohol, so the judge ruled that it amounted to Insanity and not automatism. On appeal, his conviction was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

Requirements to Prove Non-insane Automatism 

To quote from articles, if the defendant is found to have been acting as automation (“a machine that moves”) when the crime was committed, that it, totally unconsciously and involuntarily, then he cannot be said to have been “acting” at all, in a legal sense. And without actus reus, the defendant cannot be held liable for his actions.  The requirements to prove non-insane automatism are:

1. The involuntary action must be reflex and must be caused by an external factor. Case-laws to support the above condition is R v Burgess and R v Hennessy.
2. The action resulting from the external factor must be completely voluntary.
3. The automatism must not be self-induced.

In cases where the wrongdoer is intoxicated or has voluntarily induced himself, this defence will not prevail. Such cases come under self-automatism. In such a situation, neither 1 nor 2 is satisfied; hence, the defence will not be granted to the wrongdoer.

In R v. Burgess, the appellant smashed a bottle on a woman and also struck her with a video recorder. The appellant claimed automatism and proved his medical condition of sleep-walking. However, the jury decided that there could have been an internal factor that led to such violent actions and held the appellant for Insanity.

The case of R v. Bailey discusses sleep-walking as non-insane automatism. The appellant struck his ex-lover’s boyfriend and pleaded that he was hypoglycaemic and hence did not have the requisite mens rea to strike him. Medical practitioners said that the intake of sugar and water would not result in such actions just five minutes after. Moreover, the appellant admitted to carrying an iron bar, when he was in custody, hence the possibility of automatism could be ruled out. The trial judge had misdirected at self-induced automatism; however, the appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was convicted. 

The medical fraternity is still of the opinion that there isn’t much difference between non-insane and insane automatism. Peter Buck, a guitarist in a US rock-band successfully pleaded the defence of non-insane automatism in 2002. However, he was detained at the psychiatric ward of a hospital and his plea that he was unconscious at the time of the commission of the offence and hence did not have any mental condition did not succeed.

Difference Between Insane and Non-insane Automatism

Some of the significant differences between insane and non-insane automatism are:

• Although both insane and non-insane automatism leads to release from responsibility, in cases of Insanity, the accused would be committed to a mental institution. 
• In the case of Insanity, the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities is laid upon the defence. In contrast, in the case of lack of volition, the prosecution in many legal systems carries the final burden of proving the voluntary nature of the conduct.
• While the latter could plead the defence of consciousness, the former, in most cases, cannot. Non-insane automatism arises from a lack of consciousness from external stimuli; hence defence could be granted.

To differentiate between insane and non-insane automatism, judges have decided to look at it from a medical and social perspective. Comparing R. v. Charlson and R. v. Kemp:

There are several factual similarities between the two cases

In Charlson, a father was charged with striking his son and pushing him through the window during an attack caused by a cerebral tumour which tended to trigger occasional violent and uncontrollable impulses. 

In Kemp, the accused injured his wife during an attack caused by arteriosclerosis. 

In both cases, the wrongdoer acted under the influence of external factor, and the accused were unconscious of their actions. However, in Charlson, it could not be proved that the accused was suffering from a disease of the mind. In other words, the court viewed automatism derived from the cerebral tumour as non-insane automatism. While, in Kemp, the court ruled that the defendant’s action was caused by a disease of the mind, which added to the lack of consciousness and declared him insane. 

Difference: The difference between the two cases is rather related to different emphases in legal policy. Unlike the Charlson decision, the court in Kemp refrained from defining legal Insanity purely based on the medical criterion and preferred to include the social consideration of protecting the public in its decision. 

The use of different criteria leads to different boundaries between non-insane and insane automatism. According to the line of argument which stresses the medical reason for the involuntary conduct, using accepted medical terms, the range of insane automatism is narrowed.

Categories of Offences

With regard to defects of consciousness, the conduct giving rise to present pleas of Insanity and involuntary conduct may be logically classified into three categories:

(1) Conduct that falls exclusively within the realm of Insanity, namely conduct caused by a disease of the mind which may result in defects of consciousness but does not lead to unconsciousness, for example, a condition that causes the defendant not to understand the criminality or nature of his conduct, although he may be fully conscious.

(2) Conduct that falls exclusively within the realm of involuntary conduct, namely conduct caused by a defect of consciousness independent of mental incapacity, as, for example, actions performed immediately following an attack that has disabled the actor from controlling his behaviour. This category is known as sane automatism or non-insane automatism. 

(3) Conduct that falls within the common area of both Insanity and involuntary conduct, which is known as insane automatism. At one extreme of this category are cases in which the action was clearly committed unconsciously, but it is uncertain whether the malfunction is the result of mental illness. Especially advanced cases of arteriosclerosis would fall into this category. At the other extreme are cases in which the behaviour originates apparently from a disease of the mind, yet it is doubtful whether, at the same time, the actor was unconscious. Especially severe forms of dissociation states might fall into this category.

Tests for Automatism

The M’Naghten Rule

Under this rule, a person does not have control over his actions due to a disease of mind and hence loses control over the consequences that follow from it. The case laid down 5 rules that grants defence to accused doing an act under the influence of a disease. One of the relevant rules among the 5 has been given below:

“To establish the defence of insanity, it must be clearly proved that at the time of committing the crime, the person was so insane as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.”

The Irresistible Impulse

It is a defence by which, under Insanity, the defendant pleads that he be acquitted or given lesser punishment because he acts under a disease of the mind and does not have control over the impulses and consequences.

The Durham Rule

A principle of criminal law used to determine the validity of the insanity defence asserted by an accused, that he or she was insane at the time of committing a crime and therefore should not be held legally responsible for the action.

The Model Penal Code

A person may not be able to understand the law, hence may not be able to adhere by it or comprehend the consequences that might follow from his actions.

Conclusion

After numerous years of practice, the judiciary has laid down many circumstances and conditions under which non-insane automatism takes place. Movies and series in the contemporary world have shown us hypnotism as a non-insane automatism, and crimes that follow from it. The challenge in front of the judiciary is with respect to criminals who are trying to evade responsibility by claiming non-insane automatism. This is where they are required to prove that there was an external factor by bringing in medical evidence. In India, the scope of non-insane automatism has been discussed in cases where the wrongdoer uses hypnotism as a process to obtain consent for rape. Intoxication, unsoundness of mind and so on is the major topics covered under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which deals with the defence of Insanity. Many states like Delhi and Haryana have also discussed hypnotism used by criminals to commit theft. In Mumbai, a senior-citizen was hypnotised, and his gold-chain was stolen. Usually, people are given spiked food or drink, neither of that was done; instead, the man was hypnotised. Section 84 of the IPC deals with Insanity and covers automatism under it. However, the concept of non-insane automatism needs to be expanded. 

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: