Read insan-autom-hout-2010-11.pdf text version

G153 Criminal Law



Explain the definitions of insanity and automatism Understand the development of the defences over time. Understand the relationship between insanity and automatism Explain the more recent developments in the law under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and Domestic Crime, Violence and Victims Act 2004


You should also be able to evaluate:

The current state of the law The various proposals for reform (there are a lot of them!)


During this unit, you will be set the following. In completing homework, you will be expected to do your own research and supplement your own notes. This is essential to show understanding. You will be a given a short pack which includes articles on reform and evaluation of the law on insanity and automatism. You need to read the articles and consider their arguments. Using your own words, produce at least two sides evaluating the current law, and the proposals for change.


As with AS, you will sit a DRAG test but not until we have looked at the other general defences as well. Remember, you will have the choice to answer 10 out of thirty questions, reflecting your understanding and knowledge of the subject. You will also plan and complete the following section A question in timed circumstances at the end of this topic:

`The law relating to the defence of insanity is outdated and unsatisfactory. Reform is long overdue in the interests of both justice and common sense.' Evaluate the accuracy of this statement. [50] 1

G153 Criminal Law


Remember: the basic presumption is that you are both sane and of age.

Before we delve into this area, you are going to do a little bit of research. Enclosed are two articles - one from, and one from The Times. Both talk about the defences of insanity and automatism. Your job is to read the articles and answer the questions below in as much detail as possible.


1. What is insane automatism?

2. What was the decision of the jury? Did they agree with D?

3. What sentence was he given?

4. What were the facts of the killing?

5. How do the courts view the defence of insane automatism?

6. Using the information given, what is the main difference between sane automatism and insanity?

7. What do you learn about D and his previous behaviour?


G153 Criminal Law


1. What is the full technical name for this type of automatism? Is this a medical condition?

2. What was the result of Buck successfully pleading automatism?

3. What is the difference between insane and non-insane automatism?

4. Which case developed the law on automatism?

5. What were the facts of that case?

6. What do you think? Was he suffering from sane or insane automatism?

How much did you understand?


R v Lipman 1970

Automatism or insanity?


G153 Criminal Law

General Defence One:


M'Naughten 1843 *absolute key case*

FACTS: RATIO: *not from the case* D is presumed to be sane and possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes...

Figure 1: Bedlam Hospitals in Victorian Times

&quot;He [D] was labouring under such a defect of mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that it was wrong.&quot;

As you can see, the `ratio' is not strictly binding in this case. The House of Lords Judicial Committee were asked to look at the case of M'Naughten and the rules on insanity. They were asked to provide answers to 4 questions. These answers were read out in the legislative House of Lords, and technically have no binding precedence or even any legal power. Nevertheless, they have become the fundemental basis of the law on insanity and are still considered `good' law today. They have also been applied in many other common law jurisdicitions.

This means that there are four key elements to be proven:


G153 Criminal Law


Well, almost all of them! The only exception are those which are strict liability crimes. This is because insanity removes the MR element, and in these crimes there is no MR to be proven.

DPP v Harper (1997) QBD

Facts: Ratio:


The burden of proof generally rests with , who has to prove it on balance of probabilities. However, if there is evidence of D's insanity raised during the trial, then the judge or even the prosecution could raise the issue. This means that if D brings his mental state into argument in any way then the prosecution could raise insanity as an alternative. D must use a minimum of Why do you think this is? medical experts, one of whom has to be a registered mental health expert.


G153 Criminal Law


g by r of i .

If D successfully argues insanity, then they receive the special verdict of:


Be careful not to say that they were sentenced in your answers or essays as they have not been convicted of anything! The verdict comes from the horribly named Trial of Lunatics Act 1883.

What happens to them then?

Before 1991, if D argued insanity successfully, then it was an automatic, indefinite hospital order. You can understand then why so few people wanted to plead it! Even if your crime was very, very minor e.g. stealing a mars bar, you could end up in a secure mental facility e.g. Broadmoor, for the rest of your natural life! The person in control? That would be the Secretary of State for Home Affairs aka . What is going to be his concern?

Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Fitness to Plead) Act 1991 as amended by Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s.24 This gave the judges more discretion in the order they could make. The aim was to take away some of the stigma of the insanity defence, and bring it more into line with the civil disposal methods under the Mental Health Act 1983. There is some evidence that it has worked (more about that later...). The judge has the choice of the following orders: Hospital order (with or without restrictions on release) Supervision and treatment order Absolute discharge.

The only exception to this is if D is facing a charge of murder (s.24(1)(3)). In this case, if they successfully argue NGRI, the only option open to the judge is an indefinite hospital order (&quot;with restrictions&quot;) as determined by the Home Secretary. How could you criticize this ­ positively and negatively?

What else might you encourage D to plead? Why?


G153 Criminal Law

Remember Byrne?


Simply put, this means that D isn't capable doesn't use it, this is not NGRI.


of reasoning at all! If D is capable of reason and

Is this acceptable? What does this illustrate about the difference between legal and medical insanity?

R v Clarke 1972


So, is mere absentmindedness enough for defect of reason? Why/Why not?


G153 Criminal Law


The most important thing to remember about this is that it is a legal and not a medical term. This has caused huge problems and is one of the reasons that the defence has come in for so much criticism. Because it is a legal definition, then the judge can take into account policy in deciding which diseases are covered by M'Naughten. This may include things like: arteosclerosis, epilepsy, diabetes and brain tumours.


Remember for AO2, you should be considering how you might criticise these. 1. R v Kemp (1956)


D was found NGRI. However, D appealed this finding arguing that the disease was physical and not mental, as it wasn't a disease of the brain. CA upheld the finding, with Devlin J argued that it was not focused on the brain, but on the mind and &quot;its ordinary faculties of

reason, memory and understanding&quot;

What problems can you see with this?


G153 Criminal Law

2. R v Sullivan (1984)

Read the enclosed article and answer the following questions. This is the key case on the area: 1. What was the condition D was suffering from?

2. What are the facts of the case?

3. What does `disease of the mind' mean legally?

4. Does the impairment need to be permanent?

5. What could cause &quot;non-insane automatism&quot;?

6. What is the only way that the law could be changed?


G153 Criminal Law

Sleep walking: A Particular Problem for the Courts? 3. R v Burgess (1991)


R v Lowe 2009

Facts: Read the article on p.3 of the articles at the back of the handout and complete the details below: Ratio:

And most recently in the case of Brian Thomas, where the court got around the problem by dropping the charges, as the likely punishment was not in the interests of the public, according to the judge.

The case, which followed Mrs Thomas's death in the coastal town of Aberporth, was described as &quot;highly unusual&quot; by prosecuting barrister Paul Thomas. Jurors were told at the start of the trial that they could reach only two verdicts for the murder charge - not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. The court heard that tests commissioned by both the prosecution and the defence were carried out on Mr Thomas as he slept following his claims of a sleep disorder. Both sleep experts agreed his behaviour was consistent

'Highly unusual'

with automatism, which meant at the time he killed his wife, his mind had no control over what his body was doing. But the jury has been told there are two types of automatism: insane automatism and non-insane automatism, which they will have to decide between for their verdict. In court on Friday morning, however, the prosecution told the jury that it was no longer seeking a special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity and that there would be no purpose in sending Mr Thomas to a psychiatric hospital 10

G153 Criminal Law

This area of the law is even more problematic, where the offence is something other than murder! Look at the case of R v Bilton on the IWB... how does the outcome of that case vary from the established law. Why do you think this was?

The approach has been confirmed in later cases [R v Ecott 2007]. It has proved very controversial, so much so that an MP introduced a 10 minute bill intending to change the law in this area. Extension: Look at the following article and evaluate whether or not the law should be changed.

It is interesting (well it is to me!) to see that the approach of Burgess is the opposite of that taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in Parks (1992). Remember the case of the guy driving 15 miles to kill his mother in law? Well, they ruled that that was automatism. Their argument was that the sleep itself was an external factor causing the offence! The analogy they came up with was that all the stress and worry had the same effect as a blow to the head, so could be effective. What do you think?

DEVELOPING YOUR AO2 &quot;The courts current response to the problem of sleepwalking is confused and unclear&quot;


G153 Criminal Law



D was seen getting into a stolen car and crashed it. D had no memory as he had taken no insulin for 3 days &amp; was hyperglycaemic. D was charged with TWOC &amp; dangerous driving.


Simple, it is not insanity, although D may be able to argue sane automatism.

5. R v Quick (1973)



STUDENT RESPONSE: What problem[s] can you see arising from these two cases?

Which of these two defences (sane or insane automatism) would you as a defendant prefer to use? Why?


G153 Criminal Law

THIS IS PART OF THE LAST BRANCH OF THE TEST AND IS EITHER/OR WITH THE NEXT STAGE This generally means one of two things, and is very restrictive. Either:



1. D was in a state of unconciousness or impaired conciousness; or 2. If was conscious, D doesn't understand or know what they are doing or

The classic example is the woman who thinks that she is cutting bread with a knife, only she is actually cutting the neck of her victim.

If you know that you're killing someone... do you have a defence? Read the scenario below and tell me!

You are paranoid and convinced that Miss Hart has been taken over by and infected by the devil. You have tried talking to me and it doesn't work. You know that if you leave it, my stomach and internal organs will slowly be eaten away. To save me, you decide to cut me open knowing that I might die.


G153 Criminal Law


What do we mean by wrong? What standards could we use to judge `wrongness'?




The courts initially decided that it meant that D knew the act was wrong &quot;according to the ordinary reasonable standard adopted by the reasonable man&quot; Codere 1916. What do you think of this decision?

However, the courts, being the courts, decided to change this and the current test is: Did D know the action was legally wrong? This comes from the case of R v Windle (1952) FACTS: RATIO: &quot;acting contrary to law, by which we... mean the law of the land&quot; ­ restating M'Naughten.

Bear in mind that this was before the Homicide Act 1957. What do you think Windle might have been convicted of now? The test also applies even if D is suffering a mental illness.


G153 Criminal Law


For each of the following, complete the box showing how it is a criticism of insanity: Explanation

Point Definition developed in the 19th Century

Insanity is a legal definition, not a medical definition It does include `treatable' diseases

Insanity still carries social stigma.

Contradicts Article 6 of ECHR

The decision is left to the jury

The Home Secretary decides when to release them if an issue of murder. The definition is too broad

The definition is too narrow Very few people want to plead it.


G153 Criminal Law

General Defence Two:


Technically there are two types of automatism - sane and insane. Insane automatism is normally called . However, sane automatism is also a general defence. Unlike insanity, there is no special verdict and if it is successfully argued, then D has a complete defence to the crime. Non-insane automatism is where the actus reus is not done voluntarily and there is a lack of mens rea (`no fault' on the part of D) Instances which have given rise to automatism include: .

The definition of automatism comes from the case of Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland (1963) FACTS: RATIO: Any &quot;act done by 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 doing such as an act done whilst suffering from concussion or sleep walking.&quot; Denning LJ Disapproved of the earlier case of Charlson





G153 Criminal Law

Hill v Baxter 1958


T (1990)


...although this precedent has been limited by the recent case of Narborough (2006)


G153 Criminal Law

IS A PARTIAL LOSS OF SELF CONTROL ENOUGH TO ARGUE AUTOMATISM? Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1992) 1993

You know the drill... read the extract from the case and complete the questions below. This is the key case for automatism, as it updates the law! 1. What was the question posed to the court?

2. What were the facts of the offence?

3. Was D convicted? How do you know?

4. What is the difference between insane and non-insane automatism? Give an example for each.

5. What was the basis of the plea of automatism?

6. Which part of the Burgess test did the facts fail?

This case confirms the precedent of Broome v Perkins (1987) QBD D (hypoglycaemic) drove home very erratically from work, hitting another car at one point. Afterwards he could remember nothing about the journey, but seeing the damage to his car, reported himself to the police. Medical evidence suggested that it was possible for someone in his state to complete a familiar journey without being conscious of doing so, and that although his awareness of what was going on around him would be imperfect, he would be able to react sufficiently to steer and operate the car, even though not very well. Ratio: since the accused was able to exercise some voluntary control over his movements, he had not been acting in an entirely involuntary manner, and therefore the defence of automatism was not available.


G153 Criminal Law


What if D knows that his conduct is likely to bring about automatism? Can he still rely on it as a defence? Listen to the facts of R v Bailey (1983). Should D have been able to rely on automatism as his defence? What evidence is there which might refute this?

Before we go any further, you are going to have to rack your brains and remember the following (it's `cause it links to intoxication. Means Specific Basic E.g.

There are three occasions on which self-induced automatism comes into play in crimes of basic intent:

1. D was reckless in getting into the automatistic state.

RULE: D cannot rely on the defence. R v Bailey

R v Lipman



G153 Criminal Law

2. It is the result of voluntarily taken drink or drugs.

Then the case of DPP v Majewski (1977) applies. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION is still INTOXICATION!! Generally, D cannot rely on the defence.

3. D doesn't know that his actions are likely to lead to self induced state where D does offence. This is not reckless, so therefore, D can rely on the defence. Hardie (1984)



Do you agree with the notion that sleepwalking is not sufficient for a defence of automatism? Why? Use cases in your answer


G153 Criminal Law


1. How is automatism defined?

2. When pleading automatism, which part of the crime is being denied?

3. Who has the burden of proof in automatism? 4. What is the key difference between automatism and insanity?

5. What is the difference between R v Quick (1973) and R v Hennessey (1989)?

6. What does the case of R v Lipman (1970) say about voluntary intoxication and automatism?

7. From which case does the rules on insanity come, and what are the main facts?

8. What happens if D is found to be insane?

9. How is `disease of the mind' defined?


G153 Criminal Law

10. What is a `defect of reason`?

11.How did the court in R v Windle know that he knew what he had done was wrong?

12.Describe the facts of the case of R v Sullivan (1984) and explain the legal principle it lay down.

13. How did Denning define `mental disorder' in the case of Bratty?

14. Describe the facts of AG's Reference (No.2 of 1992) 1993 and explain the legal principle it lay down.

15. Give an example of an act which is self-induced automatism.


G153 Criminal Law

R v SULLIVAN [1984] AC 156 [HL] LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, the appellant, a man of blameless reputation, has the misfortune to have been a lifelong sufferer from epilepsy. There was a period when he was subject to major seizures known as grand mal but as a result of treatment which he was receiving as an out-patient of the Maudsley Hospital from 1976 onwards, these seizures had, by the use of drugs, been reduced by 1979 to seizures of less severity known as petit mal, or psychomotor epilepsy, though they continued to occur at a frequency of one or two per week. One such seizure occurred on 8 May 1981, when the appellant, then aged 51, was visiting a neighbour, Mrs Killick, an old lady aged 86 for whom he was accustomed to perform regular acts of kindness. He was chatting there to a fellow visitor and friend of his, a Mr Payne aged 80, when the epileptic fit came on. It appears likely from the expert medical evidence about the way in which epileptics behave at the various stages of a petit mal seizure that Mr Payne got up from the chair to help the appellant. The only evidence of an eye-witness was that of Mrs Killick, who did not see what had happened before she saw Mr Payne lying on the floor and the appellant kicking him about the head and body, in consequence of which Mr Payne suffered injuries severe enough to require hospital treatment. ... The M'Naghten Rules have been used as a comprehensive definition ... by the courts for the last 140 years. Most importantly, they were so used by this House in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386. That case was in some respects the converse of the instant case. Bratty was charged with murdering a girl by strangulation. He claimed to have been unconscious of what he was doing at the time he strangled the girl and he sought to run as alternative defences non-insane automatism and insanity. The only evidential foundation that he laid for either of these pleas was medical evidence that he might have been suffering from psychomotor epilepsy [see below] which, if he were, would account for his having been unconscious of what he was doing. No other pathological explanation of his actions having been carried out in a state of automatism was supported by evidence. The trial judge first put the defence of insanity to the jury. The jury rejected it; they declined to bring in the special verdict. Thereupon, the judge refused to put to the jury the alternative defence of automatism. His refusal was upheld by the Court of Criminal Appeal of Northern Ireland and subsequently by this House. The question before this House was whether, the jury having rejected the plea of insanity, there was any evidence on non-insane automatism fit to be left to the jury. The ratio decidendi of its dismissal of the appeal was that the jury having negatived the explanation that Bratty might have been acting unconsciously in the course of an attack of psychomotor epilepsy [see below], there was no evidential foundation for the suggestion that he was acting unconsciously from any other cause. In this case, as in Bratty, the only evidential foundation that was laid for any finding by the jury that Mr. Sullivan was acting unconsciously and involuntarily when he was kicking Mr. Payne, was that when he did so he was in the post-ictal [`ictal' means a sudden attack] stage of a seizure of psychomotor [bodily movements relating to the characteristics of] epilepsy. The evidential foundation in the case of Bratty, that he was suffering from psychomotor epilepsy at the time he did the act with which he was charged, was very weak and was rejected by the jury; the evidence in Mr. Sullivan's case, that he was so suffering when he was kicking Mr. Payne, was very strong and would almost inevitably be accepted by a properly directed jury. It would be the duty of the judge to direct the jury that if they did accept that evidence the law required them to bring in a special verdict and none other ... The evidence as to the pathology [cause] of a seizure due to psychomotor epilepsy can be sufficiently stated for the purposes of this appeal by saying that after the first stage, the prodram, which precedes the fit itself, there is a second stage, the ictus, lasting a few seconds, during which there are electrical discharges into the temporal lobes of the brain of the sufferer. The effect of these discharges is to cause him in the post-ictal stage to make movements which he is not conscious that he is making, including, and this was a characteristic of previous seizures which Mr. Sullivan had suffered, automatic movements of resistance to anyone trying to come to his aid. These movements of resistance might, though in practice they very rarely would, involve violence ... My Lords, I can deal briefly with the various grounds on which it has been submitted that the instant case can be


G153 Criminal Law

distinguished from what constituted the ratio decidendi in Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386, and that it falls outside the ambit of the M'Naghten Rules. First, it is submitted the medical evidence in the instant case shows that psychomotor epilepsy is not a disease of the mind, whereas in Bratty it was accepted by all the doctors that it was. The only evidential basis for this submission is that Dr. Fenwick said that in medical terms to constitute a `disease of the mind' or `mental illness,' which he appeared to regard as interchangeable descriptions, a disorder of brain functions (which undoubtedly occurs during a seizure in psychomotor epilepsy) must be prolonged for a period of time usually more than a day; while Dr. Taylor would have it that the disorder must continue for a minimum of a month to qualify for the description `a disease of the mind.' The nomenclature adopted by the medical profession may change from time to time; Bratty was tried in 1961. But the meaning of the expression `disease of the mind' as the cause of `a defect of reason' remains unchanged for the purposes of the application of the M'Naghten Rules. I agree with what was said by Devlin J in R v Kemp, that `mind' in the M'Naghten Rules is used in the ordinary sense of the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding. If the effect of a disease is to impair these faculties so severely as to have either of the consequences referred to in the latter part of the rules, it matters not whether the aetiology [cause of the disease] of the impairment is organic, as in epilepsy, or functional, or whether the impairment itself is permanent or is transient and intermittent, provided that it subsisted at the time of commission of the act. The purpose of the legislation relating to the defence of insanity, ever since its origin in 1800, has been to protect society against recurrence of the dangerous conduct. The duration of a temporary suspension of the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding, particularly if, as in Mr. Sullivan's case, it is recurrent, cannot on any rational ground be relevant to the application by the courts of the M'Naghten Rules, though it may be relevant to the course adopted by the Secretary of State, to whom the responsibility for how the defendant is to be dealt with passes after the return of the special verdict of `not guilty by reason of insanity.' To avoid misunderstanding I ought perhaps to add that in expressing my agreement with what was said by Devlin J in Kemp, where the disease that caused the temporary and intermittent impairment of the mental faculties was arteriosclerosis, I do not regard that learned judge as excluding the possibility of non-insane automatism (for which the proper verdict would be a verdict of `not guilty') in cases where temporary impairment (not being selfinduced by consuming drink or drugs) results from some external physical factor such as a blow on the head causing concussion or the administration of an anaesthetic for therapeutic purposes. I mention this because in R v Quick [1973] QB 910, Lawton LJ appears to have regarded the ruling in Kemp as going as far as this. If it had done, it would have been inconsistent with the speeches in this House in Bratty, ... where Kemp was alluded to without disapproval by Viscount Kilmuir LC at p.403, and received the express approval of Lord Denning, at p.411. The instant case, however, does not in my view afford an appropriate occasion for exploring possible causes of non-insane automatism. The only other submission in support of Mr. Sullivan's appeal which I think is necessary to mention is that, because the expert evidence was to the effect that Mr. Sullivan's acts in kicking Mr. Payne were unconscious and thus `involuntary' in the legal sense of that term, his state of mind was not one dealt with by the M'Naghten Rules at all, since it was not covered by the phrase `as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing.' Quite apart from being contrary to all three speeches in this House in Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland this submission appears to me, with all respect to counsel, to be quite unarguable. Dr. Fenwick himself accepted it as an accurate description of Mr. Sullivan's mental state in the post-ictal stage of a seizure. The audience to whom the phrase in the M'Naghten Rules was addressed consisted of peers of the realm in the 1840's when certain orotundity [pomposity] of diction [the choice or use of words] had not yet fallen out of fashion. Addressed to an audience of jurors in the 1980's it might more aptly be expressed as `He did not know what he was doing.' My Lords, it is natural to feel reluctant to attach the label of insanity to a sufferer from psychomotor epilepsy of the kind to which Mr. Sullivan was subject, even though the expression in the context of a special verdict of `not guilty


G153 Criminal Law

by reason of insanity' is a technical one which includes a purely temporary and intermittent suspension of the mental faculties of reason, memory and understanding resulting from the occurrence of an epileptic fit. But the label is contained in the current statute, it has appeared in this statute's predecessors ever since 1800. It does not lie within the power of the courts to alter it. Only Parliament can do that. It has done so twice; it could do so once again. Sympathise though I do with Mr. Sullivan, I see no other course open to your Lordships than to dismiss this appeal.


G153 Criminal Law

COURT OF APPEAL ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REFERENCE (NO. 2 OF 1992) [1994] QB 91 The Attorney-General referred a point of law for the opinion of the Court of Appeal in the following terms. `1. The point of law referred Whether the state described as `driving without awareness' should, as a matter of law, be capable of founding a defence of automatism ...' LORD TAYLOR OF GOSFORTH CJ: ... [We] take the point more generally to raise the question: `What are the requirements and limits of the defence of automatism?' On 6 September 1991 in the Crown Court at Worcester the respondent was acquitted after a five-day trial of two offences of causing death by reckless driving. On 16 April 1990 the respondent, who was a professional heavy-goods lorry driver, drove his lorry from Lincolnshire to Liverpool between the hours of 10 am and 4 pm. At about 6 pm he set off again, driving south on the M6 and then on the M5 ... On passing junction 7, the respondent steered, apparently deliberately, onto the hard shoulder. He drove some 700 metres along that shoulder with only inches to spare on either side before crashing into a stationary white van. The van had its hazard lights flashing and in front of it was a recovery vehicle with a rotating yellow light. Standing between the two vehicles were the two victims who received fatal injuries as the van was pushed into the recovery vehicle. Marks on the road showed that braking had occurred only at the very last moment. The respondent had been driving for over six hours out of the preceding twelve and had covered 343 miles. It was the prosecution case that the respondent had been overcome by sleep at the wheel. In the course of a lengthy interview with the police, he ultimately acknowledged that he was tired but had decided to push on to the next service station and must have fallen asleep. Both the prosecution and the defence had obtained expert evidence. For the defence, there was a report from Professor Brown, a chartered psychologist and assistant director of the Medical Research Council's Applied Psychology Unit in Cambridge. The Crown had obtained a report from Professor Horne, director of the Sleep Research Laboratory at Loughborough University. It was agreed by counsel that the evidence of each of these experts should be adduced and the judge admitted it. Professor Horne was called as part of the prosecution case. The respondent did not give evidence but relied upon Professor Brown's expert testimony, which is central to this reference. Professor Brown described to the court a condition known as `driving without awareness' and on the basis of his evidence it was contended for the defence that the respondent was in a state of automatism at the time of the accident and was therefore not to be regarded as driving at all ... It is common ground that, for the purposes of this reference, the court should proceed on the basis of Professor Brown's evidence at its highest. He said that `driving without awareness' is not a scientific term but a provisional, or interim, descriptive phrase coined at a conference he had attended. He said that there are two essential components to the act of driving: collision avoidance and steering within highway lanes. In a state of `driving without awareness', the driver's capacity to avoid a collision ceases to exist. This is because repetitive visual stimuli experienced on long journeys on straight, flat, featureless motorways can induce a trance-like state in which the focal point of forward vision gradually comes nearer and nearer until the driver is focusing just ahead of his windscreen. He therefore fails to see further ahead in the central field of vision. However, peripheral vision continues to send signals which are dealt with sub-consciously and enable the driver to steer within highway lanes.


G153 Criminal Law

Professor Brown said this condition can occur insidiously without the driver being aware it is happening. However, he also said that usually a driver would `snap out' of the condition in response to major stimuli appearing in front of him. Thus flashing lights would usually cause him to regain full awareness. Professor Brown was unable to explain why that had not happened in the present case. In fact, the respondent told the police when interviewed that he had seen the flashing lights some quarter of a mile before reaching them. Professor Brown was also unable to explain why the respondent should have steered, apparently deliberately, onto the hard shoulder. Despite his phrase `driving without awareness', Professor Brown agreed that the driver's body would still be controlling the vehicle, that there would be subconscious motivation to his steering and that, although `largely unaware of what was happening ahead' and `largely unaware of steering either', the unawareness was not total. Asked if nothing intrudes into the driver's consciousness when he is in this state, the professor said: `I would not go so far as to say nothing, but very little.' There must, as a matter of common sense, be some awareness if, as Professor Brown accepted, the driver will usually be caused to `snap out' of the condition by strong stimuli noticed by his eyes. ... The contention on behalf of the Attorney General is that on the evidence given by Professor Brown, even taken at its highest, there was no basis for leaving the defence of automatism to the jury ... The extent of the loss of control is crucial in the present case ... [D]espite Professor Brown's phrase `driving without awareness', the professor's description of the condition showed that it amounts only to reduced or imperfect awareness. There remains the ability to steer the vehicle straight. There is also usually a capacity to react to stimuli appearing in the road ahead. In the present case the respondent admitted he had actually seen the flashing lights a quarter of a mile from the scene. We were referred to a number of decisions drawing a distinction between insane automatism and non-insane automatism: Reg. v. Quick [1973] Q.B. 910; Reg. v. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156; Reg. v. Hennessy [1989] 1 W.L.R. 287 and Reg. v. Burgess [1991] 2 Q.B. 92. The effect of those decisions is that if the defence of automatism is said to arise from internal causes so as to bring the defendant within the M'Naghten Rules (see M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl. &amp; Fin. 200), then if it succeeds the verdict should be one of not guilty by reason of insanity. An epileptic seizure, in Reg. v. Sullivan [1984] A.C. 156, a stress disorder, prone to recur and lacking the features of novelty or accident, in Reg. v. Hennessy [1989] 1 W.L.R. 287, and sleep-walking, in Reg. v. Burgess [1991] 2 Q.B. 92, were all regarded as internal causes. If, however, automatism is said to arise from an external cause, for example a stone hitting the driver on the head, then a successful defendant is entitled to be acquitted. Here, Mr. Pert argues that the precipitating cause of the condition described by Professor Brown was the external factor of motorway conditions. However that may be, the proper approach is that prescribed by Lord Lane C.J. in Reg. v. Burgess [1991] 2 Q.B. 92, 96: `Where the defence of automatism is raised by a defendant, two questions fall to be decided by the judge before the defence can be left to the jury. The first is whether a proper evidential foundation for the defence of automatism has been laid. The second is whether the evidence shows the case to be one of insane automatism, that is to say, a case which falls within the M'Naghten Rules, or one of non-insane automatism.' ... In our judgment, the `proper evidential foundation' was not laid in this case by Professor Brown's evidence of `driving without awareness'. As the, the defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant's part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough. Professor Brown accepted that someone `driving without awareness' within his description, retains some control. He would be able to steer the vehicle and usually to react and return to full awareness when confronted by significant stimuli. Accordingly, in our judgment ... the answer to the point of law as formulated is No.


G153 Criminal Law


Across 3. The key case - epileptic who came to tea (8) 5. The correct term for 'sentencing' when D is found NGRI (7,7) 8. The people who decide sanity (4) 9. Condition suffered by Hennessey. (13) 11. All people are presumed to be this (4) 12. Condition D was afflicted with in R v Kemp, which he argued was physical (16) 13. General term for the direction make under the 1991 Act. (5) 14. Case illustrating that forgetfullness is not sufficient (6) 15. The key case on insanity, setting out the rules (9) 19

16. One of the orders under the 1991 Act (10) Down 1. The defect of mind must be caused by this.(7,2,4) 2. The test for 'wrong' R v Windle (5) 4. ............. and quality. One of the conditions (6) 6. Sleepwalking = insanity (7) 7. The ................ faculties of memory, reasoning and understanding. (8) 9. case of the vengeful diabetic. An external cause is not sufficient for insanity (12) 10. NGRI + this leads to automatic indefinate hospital detention. (6)

G153 Criminal Law

Section C Questions

Remember: these are marked for AO2 only, and require definitions, applications and evaluation of the truth of the statement. Statement A: Rashid may be charged with the manslaughter of Larissa because the condition was self-induced. Statement B: Rashid may plead the defence of automatism

Rashid suffers from diabetes. He has previously suffered blackouts due to hyperglycaemia and been placed on medication which he normally takes three times per day. He fails to take his insulin for a whole day and during the evening, while driving, he suffers from a blackout. He loses control of his car and crashes into a pedestrian, Larissa, who is on the pavement. Larissa dies instantly. Evaluate the accuracy of each of the four statements A, B, C, and D individually, as they apply to the facts in the above scenario.

Statement C: Rashid may be found not guilty by reason of insanity.


Statement D: Rashid may be hospitalised in a secure institution for the mentally disordered if found 'not guilty by reason of insanity'.

G153 Criminal Law


Medical plea key to Buck's defence

Alcohol can exacerbate the symptoms

memory. Professor Ian Hindmarch, of Surrey University, told the court that a single Ambien tablet could produce profound changes in behaviour - particularly if the sleep pattern is interrupted. He said it was possible that &quot;underlying aggression&quot; could be brought to the surface. Combining Ambien with alcohol would &quot;enhance and magnify&quot; the symptoms. Sleep controls Neil Stanley, director of the Sleep Research Unit at Surrey University, said it was possible that alcohol, drugs and other stimuli could disrupt the mental processes that ensure that the body does not endanger itself while asleep. When these controls are disturbed during a phase of deep sleep this can result in sleepwalking, which is usually benign and only ever results in injury to the person doing the sleepwalking. However, if the controls are disturbed during dream sleep this can result in a condition called REM behaviour disorder. Under normal circumstances, the body becomes paralysed during dream, or REM (Rapid Eye Movement), sleep so that it cannot act out the scenarios taking place in the dreams. However, faulty controls can lead to people acting out their dreams, which, if violent, may place others in danger. Mr Stanley said: &quot;In some people this happens naturally, and in others alcohol or medications may cause them to flip out. &quot;However, it can also be an easy excuse, because a person acting out their dreams in this way would appear to be awake.&quot; Test case 1

REM guitarist Peter Buck, who has been acquitted of attacking BA staff on a transatlantic flight to London, claimed that he had no recollection of assaulting staff or ransacking the first-class cabin. Isleworth Crown Court was told that Mr Buck was suffering from a condition known as non-insane automatism at the time of the incident. It was claimed that this condition was brought by combining alcohol and a sleeping pill at the start of the flight.

Non-insane automatism is a legal term, rather than a term to describe a medical condition. Essentially, automatism is defined legally as acting involuntarily. There are two types of the condition: insane automatism and noninsane automatism. Insane automatism is caused by a &quot;disease of the mind&quot;, while non-insane automatism is linked to external factors. In Mr Buck's case the condition was blamed on taking an Ambien sleeping pill and drinking wine at the start of his flight. He described being scared, foggy and convinced, following his arrest, that he had suffered a heart attack. Ambien belongs to a group of medicines called central nervous system (CNS) depressants (medicines that slow down the nervous system). It is associated with a range of side effects, including drowsiness, dizziness, light-headedness, or problems with coordination or

G153 Criminal Law

The concept of non-insane automatism was previously tested in English courts in the case of a man called Burgess. The defendant had visited his neighbour, and she had fallen asleep on the sofa while watching videos. She awoke after being hit on the head to find the defendant standing over her, about to bring the video recorder down on her head. Shortly afterwards Burgess appeared to come to his senses, and showed great concern for what he had done. He claimed he had gone to sleep, and only regained consciousness at the point at which he was holding the woman down on the floor. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and an order was made for the accused to be detained in a psychiatric hospital. However, he argued on appeal that he was not suffering from a mental condition, but from non-insane automatism. His argument was rejected.


G153 Criminal Law

March 19, 2005

Sleepwalker is cleared of murder after savage attack on his father

By Russell Jenkins

JURORS cleared a man of murdering his father yesterday because they believed that he had been sleepwalking when the attack took place.

Lowe, smelling strongly of alcohol, emerged naked saying: &quot;Oh my God, Dad . . .&quot; There were signs of a violent and bloody struggle all over the house. Richard Marks, QC, for the prosecution, told the court that a forensic science examination revealed that the son had inflicted his father's injuries during a sustained and savage beating. Mr Marks questioned whether it was realistically conceivable given the extreme violence used to batter the victim to death, the noise, the broken furniture and the fact that Mr Lowe had suffered injuries to the head, that he had no memory of these events. &quot;Is it really conceivable that that could be the case for the entirety of the incident?&quot; he asked. Friends and relatives told the court of witnessing past episodes of Mr Lowe's sleepwalking. There was no evidence that he had been aggressive or violent in the past. He was subjected to tests of his sleeping patterns at Broadmoor Hospital while both sober and drunk. They were said to be the most detailed in British legal history. Experts concluded there was a &quot;theoretical possibility&quot; that the killing could have taken place while he was sleepwalking, and the jury decided that Mr Lowe had not been acting voluntarily. The judge decided to make an immediate hospital order because of a number of incidents since the attack. Mr Lowe had lain down in front of traffic and assaulted a police officer, and was arrested for being drunk and disorderly while at a &quot;murder mystery&quot; weekend at a hotel a year after the the killing. Legal experts said that Mr Lowe would be assessed by doctors and then be released on licence, probably within months.

Jules Lowe, 32, who runs a motorcycle shop, did not deny that he punched, kicked and stamped on his 83-year-old father, Edward, leaving him with 90 injuries. But he insisted that he had been sleepwalking throughout the savage and prolonged attack, after a lengthy drinking session at the family home in Walkden, Greater Manchester. The claim of &quot;automatism&quot;, which effectively means that he was unaware of his own actions, was dismissed by the prosecution as &quot;far-fetched in the extreme&quot;, but at the end of a week-long trial the jury at Manchester Crown Court found Mr Lowe not guilty of murder for reason of insanity. Mr Justice Henriques told the court that the verdict did not mean that Mr Lowe was insane in the normal meaning of the word, only that he was subject to automatism. Mr Lowe, who has a history of sleepwalking, was detained under a hospital order. The judge remanded him in custody until a suitable hospital place can be found. The jury had been told that the defence of automatism rarely arose in Britain and that it had once been described to the Court of Appeal as a &quot;quagmire of law, seldom entered nowadays save for those in desperate need of a defence&quot;. The attack took place after father and son had attended the death of a family friend. Mr Lowe had stayed to keep his father company and both had drunk gin and whisky on their return home. In the early hours, neighbours heard the sounds of what they later realised was a violent struggle. The dead man's fully clothed body was discovered the following morning lifeless on the driveway. Mr 3

G153 Criminal Law

Sleepwalking man cleared of rape

A man accused of three counts of rape has been cleared by a jury because he was sleepwalking. James Bilton, 22, told York Crown Court that he could not remember the alleged attack at his flat on Hope Street, York, and must have been sleepwalking. Mr Bilton told police he had walked in his sleep since the age of 13. A sleep expert said Mr Bilton was one of only 1-2.5% of the adult population who suffered from the condition. Mr Bilton had denied all three charges. During the trial, the court heard the victim knew Mr Bilton and had slept in his bed after a night out, while Mr Bilton slept on the sofa. 'Completely oblivious' Later, the 22-year-old, who can not be named, claimed she woke to find her trousers had been taken off and Mr Bilton was assaulting her. She denied consenting to sex. Mr Bilton said he could only remember waking up after sticking to the leather sofa and was &quot;completely oblivious&quot; to what had allegedly happened, the court heard. But he said he had a history of sleepwalking which ran in the family. Sleep expert Dr Ishaad Ebrahim said people who are sleepwalking can carry out actions that they do when awake. Sexsomnia diagnosis

And of the 1-2.5% of the adult population who suffer from the condition, 4% carry out sexual behaviour. Mr Bilton's acquittal follows a similar case in Canada last month when Jan Luedecke, 33, was cleared of raping a woman after a judge ruled he was asleep at the time of the attack. Mr Luedecke and the woman had gone to a party in 2003 where the woman fell asleep on the couch. When she woke, she said she found him having sex with her. He was charged with sexual assault but during his trial sleep experts testified that he suffered from sexsomnia - when a person has sex while they are still asleep.


G153 Criminal Law

Sleep disorder: When the lights go out

Last month Brian Thomas was acquitted of strangling his wife ­ because he was asleep when he did it. But how does a sleep disorder turn an innocent man into a violent killer, and will the case open a loophole for the guilty? Stuart Jeffries The Guardian, Saturday 5 December 2009 For years, Brian and Christine Thomas rarely went to bed together. They had decided to sleep in separate rooms because his chronic sleepwalking disrupted her rest. But they were still emotionally very close. &quot;Each night, we'd have a kiss and cuddle first and then I'd go to my room, and the same in the morning,&quot; he said recently. &quot;If she woke first, she'd come to my bed, and if I woke first, I'd go to hers. We never got up without being in each other's beds first.&quot; Thomas, now 59, had been sleepwalking since he was a child. He would sometimes wake up with cut feet and stones in his bed. He once even swam in a nearby canal while asleep. His wife was so worried by these incidents that she took to locking the house at night and taking the keys to bed so Thomas could not sleepwalk out of the house. His sleep disorder became so bad in recent years that he was prescribed antidepressants. He would come off the drugs, which he believed made him impotent, every two months so he could make love with his wife. &quot;A side-effect of coming off them was hallucinations,&quot; he said. &quot;Now, when I think about it, I realise that most of my problems came when I was off the drugs.&quot; Last July, the couple went on an impromptu holiday to west Wales in their camper van, to cheer up Christine after a cancer scare. Brian had come off antidepressants a week before they went away, and they slept in the same bed. On the last night of their holiday, they stopped the camper in a car park in the seaside village of Aberporth. They had dinner at a pub, saw a beautiful sunset and then went to bed. &quot;I always slept with her back towards me and my right arm under her neck and my left arm over her,&quot; Thomas said.


Later in the night they were woken by what Thomas described as &quot;boy racers&quot; doing hand brake turns in the car park near where they were sleeping. &quot;As I went to sleep, it must have been on my mind that the camper wasn't secure. Then ­ I don't know how much later it was ­ I recall seeing Chris in bed over the other side of the camper and someone on top of her. All I said was: 'You bastards, you got in here.' I grabbed this man round the neck and pulled him off.&quot; The following morning Brian woke up next to Christine's strangled body. He rang 999 and said: &quot;I think I've killed my wife. Oh my God. I thought someone had broken in, I must have been dreaming or something. What have I done?&quot; Last month Thomas, a retired steel worker, was acquitted at Swansea Crown court of strangling Christine, 57. Lawyers prosecuting Thomas originally argued for a verdict of &quot;not guilty by way of insanity&quot;, but then dropped the case, and Thomas was found simply &quot;not guilty&quot;. Judge Nigel Davies concluded that Thomas was &quot;a decent man and a devoted husband&quot;. And Thomas has since said, &quot;I'll never forgive myself, ever. It's like a hatred ­ a hatred of myself. Why did I do it?&quot; But the case raises uncomfortable questions. Can a sleep disorder qualify as insanity? Could other, guilty, defendants use a similar claim to get away with murder? And what turns a chronic sleepwalker into an unwitting killer? Dr Chris Idzikowski has been a sleep specialist for 30 years. When I meet him at the Edinburgh Sleep Centre he is still trying to understand the complexities of the Thomas trial, at which he was an expert witness for the defence. &quot;The court accepted that this was a case of automatism,&quot; he says. &quot;Meaning you have a condition that can lead to automatic behaviour, be that epilepsy, hypoglycaemia or ­ as in Thomas's case ­ a sleep disorder. In such cases you can't be held responsible for your actions.&quot; However, the plea of automatism is a complicated and controversial one. Idzikowski tells me he typically receives one inquiry a week from lawyers seeking to use automatism as a defence for clients charged with offences ranging from assault to rape and murder. He first met Thomas before the trial and did two sleep studies on him, first at the Birmingham sleep centre and then at Swansea Prison, to test his claim that it was a

G153 Criminal Law

parasomnia, or sleep disorder, that had led him to kill his wife. &quot;The recordings show that he had a condition that was consistent with night terrors,&quot; says Idzikowski. &quot;But there's more than just a history of sleepwalking. There is a problem of him not breathing properly in the night, which can be a trigger for sleep behaviours.&quot; Thomas proved particularly difficult to diagnose. &quot;Initially we thought it was a case of REM [rapid eye movement] disorder behaviour, brought on by withdrawing from his drugs.&quot; REM is the more shallow form of sleep, during which we dream, so that made sense, Idzikowksi says. &quot;He seemed to be acting out his dream of fighting with an intruder, and acting out dreams is a classic REM sleep disorder.&quot; But Thomas's night terrors and sleepwalking are both parasomnias associated with deeper, dreamless non-REM sleep. Non-REM sleep disorders happen when your cognitive functions are not engaged, but your behavioural patterns are. &quot;They often start because of an abrupt arousal like a car backfiring, or being too hot or too cold,&quot; explains Professor Colin Espie of Glasgow University's Sleep Centre. &quot;That trigger rockets them to wakefulness. But thinking, planning and memory formation activities are still asleep.&quot; Idzikowski is still unsure which form of sleep disorder caused Thomas to kill his wife, but he supports the court's decision. &quot;The prosecution withdrew their case, which was right.&quot; Is Thomas insane? &quot;No: it's a legal definition, not a medical one. Legally, there's non-insane automatism and insane automatism. The former is used if you've had a blow to the head, or you withdraw from drugs, and that creates the condition. Insane auto­matism is when it's intrinsic to the person's behaviour. Thomas withdrew from his drugs, but he also had a history of sleep disorders. So you could argue either non-insane or insane automatism. But to call him medically insane is not right.&quot; An estimated 10 million Britons have sleep problems. A small proportion of those suffer from parasomnias, which are a range of sleep disorders that involve abnormal movements and behaviours during sleep. Two per cent of us suffer from sleepwalking (most are children, but for some the condition persists into adulthood). In 2005, a teenage sleepwalker had to be rescued after being found asleep on the arm of a 130ft crane. Andrew, 27, has suffered from sleep disorders for as long as he can


remember. &quot;A lot of people have parasomnias in childhood and grow out of it. I didn't. My parents say that when I was a child I would cry out in my sleep a lot, but they didn't think it was treatable. &quot;When I started living with other people it became a problem. I had a flatmate who kept a rosary above her bed because she thought the noise was being made in the night by some sort of howling ghost.&quot; One night, his flatmates found him in his attic bedroom screaming and trying to prop up the roof with his arms. &quot;The next morning, I had no memory of what I'd done.&quot; Night terrors must make long-term relationships difficult. &quot;Absolutely. The worst thing was that I wouldn't remember what I'd done in the night, which made me feel terribly guilty. I would never be aggressive to people ­ it's more of an inward aggression and fear ­ but there was always a danger I would lash out in my sleep and hurt someone I cared about.&quot; It was only last year that Andrew sought treatment. &quot;My fiancée nagged me because she was worried she was going to get hurt.&quot; Andrew's GP referred him to St Thomas's Hospital in London where his sleep patterns were monitored overnight. &quot;I remember my consultant showing me the results. He pointed to one part of the graph for what's called 'fourth stage non-REM sleep' and said to me, jokingly, 'This is the automaton stage... as it would be described in court.' That's where I'd get off with murder, because the things you do in your sleep at that point, you don't know you're doing.&quot; The first case in which the defence of automatism was successfully argued is thought to be that of Albert Tirrell, who in 1846 was accused in Boston, Massachusetts, of murdering his lover, a prostitute called Maria Bickford. His lawyer, Rufus Choate, convinced the jury that Tirrell did not cut Bickford's throat ­ or, if he did so, did it while sleepwalking; under the &quot;insanity of sleep&quot;. Since then, the controversial defence has been used in murder trials more than 60 times. In 2005, for example, Jules Lowe, 32, was found not guilty of murdering his 83-year-old father Edward after claiming the attack at his home in Walkden, Greater Manchester, took place while he was sleepwalking. Edward suffered 90 separate injuries which

G153 Criminal Law

Manchester Crown court heard were consistent with being punched, kicked and stamped on, but his son had no memory of the attack. Dr Irshaad Ebrahim, director of the London Sleep Centre, was called in to carry out a series of overnight sleep studies on Lowe to test his claim, measuring brain waves, muscle activity and breathing activity. He also looked at factors that trigger sleepwalking episodes, such as alcohol and stress. &quot;We think this was the first sleepwalking murder in the UK,&quot; he says. &quot;Mr Lowe had a history of sleepwalking, and this was generally worse when he drank alcohol, but he had never been violent before the night of this offence. However, his stepmother had just died and there were several other stressful factors occurring in his life.&quot; This was, however, an unusual case. &quot;Extreme forms of violence, of sleepwalking or automatism, are extremely rare, so we usually view them with suspicion.&quot; Rare, perhaps, but such cases often receive a great deal of publicity. One especially famous criminal case of automatism didn't involve a sleep disorder, but still made headlines. When REM guitarist Peter Buck attacked two cabin staff during a 2002 British Airways flight from Seattle to Heathrow, it was seen initially as a case of a boozed up rock star behaving badly. Buck covered the cabin crew in yogurt, knocked over a trolley, tried to steal a knife and swore at the captain. But he was acquitted of common assault and damaging property. The court accepted he had no recollection of the incident because he was suffering from non-insane automatism at the time, brought on by combining alcohol and a sleeping pill at the start of the flight. After the verdict, pilots' union Balsa said the jury decision sent out &quot;all the wrong signals&quot;. Similar scepticism has inevitably greeted rape cases in which automatism has been used as a defence. In 2007, 26-year-old RAF serviceman Kenneth Ecott was found not guilty of raping a 15-year-old girl in Poole, Dorset. He told Bournemouth Crown court he had a condition called &quot;sexsomnia&quot;. During a friend's birthday party, Ecott climbed into a bed with the girl and had sex with her. She awoke to find him naked on top of her. She screamed and then watched him get up slowly and go into the garden. Ecott told the court he had no memory of the rape. The girl's mother told reporters after Ecott's acquittal, &quot;I worry


that there are a lot more people who will get off lightly using the same defence. They could harm someone else and use sexomnia as an excuse.&quot; How can someone unknowingly commit a violent act such as rape? &quot;If sexual activity is a habitual behaviour, then it is possible,&quot; Professor Espie says. He points out that we carry out many tasks unconsciously every day. &quot;It's only when you learn something new that you do it fully consciously. For example, when you're learning how to drive, you can't imagine that you'll ever be able to do it automatically. But eventually you do, with no memory of having got from A to B. It's similar with sleepwalkers. Often you'll find they carry out tasks ­ boiling a kettle, making toast ­ on automatic.&quot; Espie believes this automatic behaviour can stretch to making sexual advances. &quot;We've had couples come in for sleep studies, with one partner complaining of unwanted sexual attention in the night from their sleeping partner.&quot; Cases of sexsomnia, though, are unusual. Dr Adrian Williams of the London Sleep Centre says that most court cases involving defendants with sleep disorders are accidents involving sleepy drivers. In one case, in 2005, Colin Kane, 36, from Bishopton, Renfrewshire, was driving a truck that crashed into a tailback near Alexandria, Dunbartonshire. Three people died in the accident. &quot;This driver managed to convince the court that he was not responsible for the crash because his sleep apnoea [disturbed breathing during sleep] meant he was not in control of his vehicle at the time,&quot; Dr Williams says. Kane had reportedly experienced a blackout just before the crash, which may have been caused by his sleeping disorder. The jury found the case not proven. &quot;So far, sleep apnoea hasn't been successfully used as a defence in such cases,&quot; Dr Williams says. Most parasomniacs don't end up in court. Usually they seek help and, in most cases, their behaviour is brought under control. For the past year, Andrew has been taking varying doses of antidepressants, trimipramine and the muscle relaxant clonazepam. The side effects of the parasomnia have almost gone and he sleeps much better, &quot;but I worry that I'm developing a tolerance to the drugs&quot;. For many parasomniacs, these drugs and their side-effects are a reality of life. In the Thomas case, his defence rested on the fact that he had come off his anti-depressants. But should parasomniacs take more responsibility for their condition? &quot;If, during sleepwalking for example, you regularly drive, shouldn't you

G153 Criminal Law

or someone in your family take steps to hide the keys so you can't?&quot; asks Professor Espie. &quot;Say you killed a pedestrian by driving while asleep and you had a history of sleepwalking, shouldn't you deserve to be found culpable?&quot; So far, though, there have been no such convictions in Britain. Courts have, however, attempted to stop the circumstances that led to a sleepdisorder-related death recurring. &quot;There was a case in Edinburgh in the 19th century in which a sleeping man thought his son was being attacked by wild animals,&quot; Dr Idzikowski says. &quot;He thought he'd thrown him to safety, but in fact he threw him against the wall and killed him. The judge and jury accepted the defence of automatism, with the proviso that he could no longer sleep with anyone again.&quot; Sleep-related automatism is controversial partly because there is a worry that even sleep experts can be hoodwinked by cunning defendants. &quot;I have certainly seen people who I think are trying it on,&quot; Espie says. &quot;It's very difficult to tell the difference between a genuine and a bogus case, and I've been in sleep research for 30 years. At one extreme you might have a lying psychopath who wants to get off, and at the other extreme an innocent who invariably admits to what they have done.&quot; How then do you tell them apart? &quot;One sign is that the innocents are generally not defensive at all, because they can't remember it happened. They readily admit to what happened, and say it wasn't their fault.&quot; &quot;One judge said that automatism is the last refuge of the scoundrel,&quot; Dr Idzikowski says. &quot;I'm sure there are people who have the disorder, commit a crime, and try to lean back on it to get away with it.&quot; Could that have happened with Brian Thomas? &quot;I'm convinced he was not guilty. That said, you never know. Maybe he's a genius who's tricked me and everybody else and is now going to claim lots of insurance money for his wife's death. Perhaps, but I don't think so.&quot;



37 pages

Report File (DMCA)


Report this file as copyright or inappropriate

