seminar 9 automatism

7/30/2019 Seminar 9 Automatism

1/16

1

Re-cap

Offense: establishing criminal liabilityDefenses: reasons why accused should beexempt from the criminal law

1. The defective agent: mental and volitional2. Justification3. Excuses4. Failure of proof (mistake, intoxication)


2/16

2

The defective agent:mental and volitional

Unsoundness of mindUnsoundnessIncapacity to know nature/wrong or contrary to law

Diminished responsibilityAbnormality (arrested/retarded development, inherentcauses, disease/injury)Substantial impairment of mental responsibility

Insane automatism/automatismLack of control but not lack of consciousnessHow do you fit this into the Penal Code?


3/16

3

Re:capUnsoundness

MNaghtens Rules [1843]A killed secretary of PM came to London to kill PM the tories in my city follow and persecute me wherever I

go, and have entirely destroyed my peace of mind. They doeverything in their power to harass and persecute meQuestion went all the way to HOL laboring under such adefect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not knowthe nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he didknow it, that he did not know he was doing what waswrong


4/16

4

Re-capUnsoundness

Mental defectProve defense of unsoundnessChallenge mens rea (Rozman)

What if drug induced?Local case law dont deal with this very clearly Discount the effect of the drug artificial?


5/16

5

Re-capUnsoundness

Chia Moh Heng A 52 years old, unemployed - renting flat together with 55year old friend one day, 1 am, A woke up and went to

brush teeth - saw knife next to the sink - took it in hishand and walked to sleeping friend stabbed friend inchestIn deciding s.84 or exception 7

Medical evidence essential but not the final word

Whose perspective does the judge seem to prefer?Medical, legal, ordinary man?What does judge think of legal test for s. 84Does the judge apply any legal test?


6/16

6

Re-capdiminished responsibility

What test? Krishnasamy Naidu : composite test

abnormality of mind that substantially impairs mental

responsibilityYMC : 3-step test

Abnormality of mind (Byrne definition: cognitive andvolitional)arrested/retarded development, inherent causes,disease/injurySubstantially impairs


7/16

7

Krishnasamy NaiduA and V married on 1985 2 kids in 1980s, v had affair In2000, v had affair In 2001, v had affair another affair In2004, another affair Lower court applies 3-step test (fails 3 rd step)

If the mental responsibility of the accused was not impaired,then the answer to the composite question really should be thatthe accused was not suffering from an abnormality of mindthat substantially impaired his mental responsibilityCourt did not agree with lower ct assessment of facts

Importance given to planAssessment that could have resisted impulse

Court argued that lower courts wrong assessment resultedfrom using wrong test do you agree?


8/16

8

Lim Chin Chong [1998] 2 SLR 794

A young male prostitute killed V when V propositioned AArgued: acute adjustment disorder

Psychiatrist: this disorder cumulative effect of being sent for adoptionwhen 2 yrs old; adoptive mother dying when 4 yrs old; adoptive father

remarrying at 6 yrs old; lack of love; running away from Penang toKelantan; duped into being male prostitute --- developed guilt complex breaking point when propositionedPara. 37 f this all it takes to set up the defense of diminishedresponsibility then society will run amok with many of thesesufferers killing others on the spur of the moment and then hiding

behind a shield of abnormality of mind to lessen the gravity of their crimes


9/16

9

Automatism

Seminar 9


10/16

10

Automatism

Targets situations where accused has no control over actionsTwo kinds of lack of control

Peculiar to accusedCan happen to any of us

Penal Code does not expressly provide for both kindsof automatism

Why should accused suffering from automatism beexempted?Lack of control --- voluntariness of action (idea thatcriminal law should treat individuals as choosing agents)


11/16

11

Insane automatism

S.84 UnsoundnessIncapacity to know nature/wrong or contrary tolawCognitive/consciousness

Automatism No control but may be conscious


12/16

12

Insane automatism

YMC interprets s.84 to include insane automatismProblem s. 84 refers to cognitive defects, automatism is acontrol problem (may be conscious)

S.84 Nothing is an offence which is incapable of being done ( implies voluntariness) by a person.by reasonof unsoundness of mind

No need to go on to see if incapable of knowingnature/wrong or contrary to law


13/16

13

Sane/insane automatism

Does it matter?Burden of proof

Factors to be consideredCommon law countriesInternal causeContinuing danger


14/16

14

Sane automatism

S. 39 voluntary A person is said to cause an effect voluntarilywhen he causes it by means ( YMC:implieswilled conduct) whereby he intended to causeit, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reasonto believe to be likely to cause itdo you agree?


15/16

15

Sinnasamy

A charged with the murder of his infant daughter. Aclaimed to have suffered from an epileptic fit at thetime of the killing.

The defense was that D did the act when in a state of automatism, which is a temporary loss of consciousness associated with some types of epilepsy.The onus is on D to set up this defense, and thequestion is whether he has succeeded in bringinghimself within s 84 of the Penal Code .Did judge believe he was having a fit at that time?


16/16

16

Kenneth Fook Mun Lee

Automatism comprises a state of defectiveconsciousness in which a person performs unwilled acts. Two types of automatism (citing foreign case law)

insane automatismsane (or non-insane) automatism

The two types are differentiated according to whether the cause was internal or external, and whether thecondition was prone to recur.

The burden of proof varies according to whether theautomatism was insane (burden on the defence) or sane (burden on the prosecution).

seminar 9 automatism

Documents