Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T21:55:25.083Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Automatism — a medico-legal conundrum*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

Paul T. d'Orbán
Paul T. d'Orbán*
Affiliation:
Royal Free Hospital, Pond Street, London NW3 2QG
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the past 35 years, a series of Court decisions have developed and refined the concept of automatism, defined in law as unconscious involuntary action. Two varieties of automatism have come to be recognised. In insane automatism, the absence of mens rea is caused by disease of the mind, and the defence leads to an insanity verdict with compulsory detention in hospital. In non-insane automatism, the mind is affected by some external factor and the findings result in complete acquittal. However, from the medical point of view, the distinction between exogenous and endogenous factors is naive and may lead to decisions that are contrary to natural justice and common sense. The main practical problems arise because of the mandatory commital to hospital when there is an insanity verdict and legal reform is required.

Keywords

AutomatismCrimeJurisprudenceForensic PsychiatryHomicide
Type
Review Articles
Information
Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , September 1989 , pp. 71 - 80
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Based on a lecture given at a medico-legal symposium at The Central Mental Hospital, Dublin, on 24th February 1989.

References

1. R v Charlson [1955] 1 All ER 859.Google Scholar
2. R v Hennessy (1989) Times Law Report, 31 01 1989.Google Scholar
3.Fenton, G W. Clinical disorders of sleep. Brit J Hospital Med 1975; 14: 120–145.Google Scholar
4. Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1961] 3 All ER 523.Google Scholar
5. R v Cottle (1958) NZLR 999.Google Scholar
6. Roberts v Ramsbottom [1980] 1 WLR 823.Google Scholar
7. R v Kemp [1956] 3 All ER 249.Google Scholar
8. Hill v Baxter [1958] 1 All ER 193.Google Scholar
9. R v Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347.Google Scholar
10. R v Sullivan [1983] 2 All ER 673.Google Scholar
11. R v Majewski [1976] 2 All ER 142.Google Scholar
12. R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760.Google Scholar
13. R v Hardie [1984] 3 All ER 848. Also cited by Deliberate, Brahams D. taking of diazepam may provide a defence to a criminal charge. Lancet 1985; 1: 356.Google Scholar
14. R v K (1970). Cited by Gibbens, T C N, Hall Williams, JE. Medicolegal aspects of amnesia. In: Whitby, C W M, Zangwill, OL, eds. Amnesia. London: Butterworths, 1977: 257.Google Scholar
15.Howard, C, d'Orbán, P T. Violence in sleep: medico-legal issues and two case reports. Psychol Med 1987; 17: 915–925.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16.Schenck, C H, Bundlie, S R, Ettinger, M G, Mahowald, M W. Chronic behavioural disorders of human REM sleep: A new category of parasomnia. Sleep 1986; 9: 293–308.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Schenck, C H, Bundlie, S R, Patterson, A L, Mahowald, M W. Rapid eye movement sleep behaviour disorder. JAMA 1987; 257: 1786–1789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18.Hamilton, J R. Insanity legislation. J Med Ethics 1986; 12: 13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19.Home Office, Department of Health and Social Security. Report of the Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders. Cmnd 6244. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1975.Google Scholar