Crime CXXIX – Intoxication V
If
the defendant became intoxicated because of external factors or factors that
were to some degree or extent beyond his or her control then that might be a
mitigating factor that might reduce the severity of the crime for example in
instances of automatism.
There
are two types of automatism:-
Automatism
that arises as a result of the defendant’s failure to do something or the
defendant overdoing something that he is supposed to do. This type of
automatism is considered or regarded as intoxication.
1. Automatism
that is precipitated by natural causes i.e. a sickness or an illness. This type
of automatism is regarded as insanity.
2. Automatism
per se is the defendant’s inability to control himself or herself, and it works
in the same manner that an impulse control disorder does. However, impulse
control disorders are inherent conditions that exist throughout whereas
automatism only arises at certain times and in most instances if the defendant
takes his or her medication in the prescribed manner, it never arises.
In
R v Quick (1973) the defendant a male nurse who was a diabetic had taken
insulin without consuming any food, and in addition to that had consumed alcohol
which aggravated the situation (whisky and rum). He assaulted a patient who was
a paraplegic and inflicted injuries that included a broken nose and a black
eye.
The
defendant was charged under s.47 of the Offences Against Person Act (1861) and
the trial judge directed the jury on insanity (automatism that arises
naturally). He was convicted and he appealed.
The
appeal was allowed and the conviction was quashed. The defendant was suffering
from automatism that arose from a failure to consume food after taking insulin
or taking excessive insulin and his condition was further aggravated or
exacerbated by the fact that he’d been drinking.
It
was automatism that arose from external factors i.e. a failure to do something
that is required or doing something that the defendant shouldn’t be doing given
his condition and the type of automatism that the defendant suffered from fell
under the category of intoxication.
The
defendant lacked the mens rea or the mental element required for a s.47
conviction and while the defendant committed the act it is difficult to say
that he was in full control or had any degree of control over his mind or his
body at the time (according to the defendant he could not remember injuring the
victim).
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment