⇒ To plead automatism a defendant needs to show:

1. he had suffered a complete loss of voluntary control;
2. this was caused by an external factor;
3. he was not at fault in losing capacity.

⇒ Automatism occurs when a defendant suffers a complete loss of self-control caused by an external factor.

⇒ Automaitsm involves more than the individual lacked mens rea. It is a claim that he or she is not acting: it is a denial of the actus reus.

• The significance of this is that automatism is a defence even to a crime of strict liability which has no mens rea requirement.

⇒ The Court of Appeal in Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] emphasises that to rely on automatism there must be a complete loss of voluntary control.

• This does appear harsh though, as it would deny a defence to a person who had only a vague awareness of what was happening to him.

⇒ If a person acts while unaware of what he is doing such a person may either be an automaton or insane. The distinction between the two is whether the person's mental state was cuased by an internal or external factor:

1. If it is caused by an internal factor the person is classified as insane.
2. If it is caused by an external factor the person has the complete defence of automatism.

⇒ It was thought that sleepwalking was an external factor, but it was held by the Court of Appeal in R v Burgess [1991] to be an example of insanity because it is a mental condition (an internal factor) which predisposes a person to sleepwalking.

⇒ The defendant cannot plead automatism if he or she is responsible for causing his or her condition.

⇒ The test is subjective: was the defendant aware that his or her actions or inactions would cause his or her mental condition, rather than asking whether the defendant ought to have been aware that his or her actions or inactions would cause his or her mental condition.