# New Zealand Law/Criminal/Automatism
## Definition

An unconscious involuntary act performed without conscious volition.

## Cases
### R v Cottle

* Held
* Where intent is an essential ingredient and… a proper foundation has been laid and automatism is consistent with sanity, the accused should be acquitted. But if the automatism is attributable to a disease of the mind, the verdict should be acquittal on acct of insanity.
* If sane automatism, onus on defence to provide no more than sufficient evidence from which a finding can be based. If insanity, accused must establish.
* It is for the trial judge to instruct the jury on what constitutes a disease of the mind. It is for the jury to say whether the accused is suffering from a disease of the mind.
* Obiter
* Prosecution must disprove non-insane automatism beyond reasonable grounds once defence put evidence on which such a finding could be based.
* Automatism is an action of which the doer is not conscious, a temporary eclipse of consciousness that nevertheless leaves a person able to exercise bodily movements.
* If there is evidence of insanity, judge must put insanity to jury - judge must consider fairness to the defence, public interest.
* Crown may not adduce evidence of insanity first.

### R v Rabey

* Facts
* Student infatuated with classmate, reads letter in which she calls him a nothing.
* When she tells him she considers him “a friend”, defendant snaps.
* Held SC of Canada
* An internal malfunction is a disease of the mind. A transitory external malfunction is not a disease of the mind.
* Ordinary stresses and disappointments of life are not an external cause. However, a dissociative state caused by viewing, for example, an horrific accident in which loved ones died is external, not a disease of the mind.

### Ministry of Transport v Strong

* Facts
* Driving, defendant hit roundabout.
* When stopped, refused to take breath test.
* At trial, claimed automatism.
* Held
* Strict liability offence.
* Defence of automatism not available where intent is not an ingredient (ie automatism is subsumed into a defence of due diligence or total absence of fault.)

### Police v Bannin

* Facts
* Schoolboy with Kleine-Levin syndrome
* Expert said not automatism or disease of mind.
* Held
* Judge can receive expert evidence but must categorise himself.
* Automatism and Disease of the Mind are legal not medical terms.
* If malfunction internal and risk of recurrence high, then the Court is entitled to order treatment.
* However, it is still necessary to prove that the defendant was not conscious. In this case, there was evidence that the def was aware of important facts and acted intentionally.
* But prosecution had not proven that the defendant had an intention to commit a crime when he entered.

### R v Campbell

* Held
* A loss of self-control does not mean that the conduct is voluntary (unless automatism – which requires absence of conscious volition).

### Burnskey v Police

* Facts
    Appellant suffered brain injury at birth, brain “functioned defectively”.
* Held:
* Not a disease of the mind (but provided foundation for automatism).
* Impaired consciousness raised possibility of automatism (but note Adams doubts sufficient).

### R v Stone (SC of Canada)

* Held (following Rabey).
    1. If automatism results from psychological blow, must be presumed to be disease of the mind unless the trigger was:
       (a) extremely shocking; or
       (b) such that a normal person would have entered a dis-associative state.
    2. If the condition is likely to recur, then it is insanity.
    3. Suggests defence may sometimes succeeds, but in this case defendant semi-conscious and has some memory.
    4. Accused must prove automatism – sane or insane – on the balance of probabilities.
    5. For automatism to be considered, defendant must claim and must support with expert evidence.