Brianna Jeffrey

Law 143
Law assignment

No act is punishable if it's done involuntarily and an involuntary act … means an act which is
done by the muscles without any control by the mind."
(Lord Denning in Bratty v. A.G. for Northern Ireland.)
With reference to decided cases, discuss how this view relates to criminal liability

"No act is punishable if it's done involuntarily and an involuntarily act ... means an act which is
done by the muscles without any control by the mind."- Lord Denning. This means act which is
not consciously controlled by the mind or over which a person has no control, such as reflexes
or convulsions. Also referred to as involuntary conduct. In criminal law, involuntary actions may
absolve the actor of liability. In some jurisdictions. actions which are coerced are considered
voluntary; however, defenses such as duress may still be available.. In criminal law,Criminal
liability is a general principle of criminal law it says that a person may not be convicted of a
crime unless the prosecution have proved beyond reasonable doubt. There are two elements of
a crime. These two elements are crucial in determining when criminal liability exists in a
particular case. The first of these is the actus reus (Latin for ‘guilty act’). The second is the mens
rea (Latin for ‘guilty mind’). The event or state of affairs which is forbidden is called the actus
reus, and the guilty state of mind is called the mens rea.
In criminal law, mens rea (/ˈmɛnz ˈreɪə/; Law Latin for "guilty mind” is the mental state of the
crime committed and the legal determination of a crime may depend upon both a mental state
and actus reus, like the designation of a homicide as murder is a matter of intention to commit a
crime or in some jurisdictions knowledge (and reckless disregard) that one's action (or lack of
action) would cause a crime to be committed. The mitigation of culpability under some
established legal doctrines may reduce the severity of some criminal charges, and so mental
state is an element of most crimes, other than crimes of strict liability (like statutory rape where
prosecution does not need to prove the defendant knew the age of the victim for a conviction, in
some jurisdictions).
The standard common law test of criminal liability is expressed in the Latin phrase actus reus
non facit reum nisi mens sit rea i.e. "the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty". As a
general rule, someone who acted without mental fault is not liable in criminal law.Exceptions are
known as strict liability crimes. Moreover, when a person intends a harm, but as a result of bad
aim or other cause the intent is transferred from an intended victim to an unintended victim, the
case is considered to be a matter of transferred intent.
The types of mental states that apply to crimes vary depending on whether a jurisdiction follows
criminal law under the common law tradition or, within the United States, according to the Model
Penal Code.
In civil law, it is usually not necessary to prove a subjective mental element to establish liability
for breach of contract or tort, for example. But if a tort is intentionally committed or a contract is
intentionally breached, such intent may increase the scope of liability and the damages payable
to the plaintiff.
Actus reus is the wrongful deed that comprises the physical components of a crime that must be
coupled with mens rea for one to be held criminally liable. An act may be an actus reus provided
the act is proven to have been the act of the accused. It is possible for some action of mine to
lead to a result forbidden by the criminal law, but yet that action is not ‘my act’ in a legal sense.
To be my act it must be proven to be a voluntary, conscious movement by me of my

muscles. If it is not truly an act of the accused he may have available to him the defence of
‘automatism’.
Automatism: The defense of automatism is available when the act was done while unconscious,
or as a result of spasms, reflex actions, and convulsions. In such an instance, the commission
of the act would not have been a result of the accused’s will. Automatism is of two types, namely
insane and non-insane automatism. Insane automatism arises from some internal factor, while
non-insane automatism is external.
The leading case on insane automatism is Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963) where the
defense of automatism failed.
Bratty v AG for Northern Ireland (1963)
The defendant took off a girl’s stocking and strangled her with it. He told the police that a “sort of
blackness” came over him and that “I did not know what I was doing. I didn’t realise anything.”
There was medical evidence that he was suffering from ‘psychomotor epilepsy’ which might
have prevented him from knowing the nature and quality of his act. He was charged with murder
and pleaded the defences of automatism and insanity, but the jury rejected them and convicted
him. He appealed.
Held, his condition was evidence for the defence of insanity, not automatism, and his conviction
was set aside. Lord Denning indicated that the defence of automatism has narrow limits as a
defence. It is confined to acts done while unconscious and due to spasms, reflex actions, and
convulsions. As a result of the finding of insanity, the defendant was committed to a mental
asylum for the criminally insane instead of being released.
Another case is the dictum in Bratty was approved in R v Burgess (1991).
R v Burgess (1991) The accused suffered from apoplexy, an illness which causes involuntary
spasms. While under an attack of the illness the accused wounded the victim. He was charged
with the offence of wounding.
Held, the accused's action was involuntary, he had the benefit of the defence of automatism,
and he was not guilty of the offence.
The leading authority for non-insane automatism caused by an external factor for is Hill v Baxter
(1958).
Hill v Baxter (1958)
The accused was stung by bees while driving. As a result, he lost control of the vehicle, which
hit and killed the deceased. He was charged with causing the death by reckless driving.
Held, there was no actus reus on the accused's part resulting in the deceased's death. He had
the benefit of the defence of automatism. This is under the same basis as Lord Benning’s theory
that there is no way that you can punish someone for involuntarily committing an act.
Conclusively, criminal liability and Lord Benning’s view have the same perspective.