This produced a temporary loss of consciousness at which time he attacked. He admitted he had a defect of reason but said that this did not arise from a disease of the mind. His condition was a physical as opposed to a mental disease. A physical disease which caused the brain cells to deteriorate would be a disease of the mind but until that happened, his condition was a temporary interference with the brain, comparable with a concussion, therefore the true defence was automatism, entitling him to an acquittal. Devlin J rejected this claim, saying that the law is concerned with disease of the mind and not disease of the brain. If all cases of insanity had to show a physical deterioration of the brain many cases of insanity would not have been established. .
This case can be contrasted to:.
Charlson (1955).
D hit his son and threw him into the river. Medical evidence showed that he was suffering from a tumour that left him liable to violent outbursts. The judge asked the jury to consider automatism only and they acquitted.
Under Lord Denning's direction Charlson would have been found not guilty of several offences by reason of insanity.
How to distinguish between sane and insane automatism.
Automatism caused by a disease of the mind = insane automatism.
Automatism not caused by a disease of the mind = sane automatism.
This is a matter for the judge- [Bratty (1963)- below].
They use 2 approaches:.
The Continuing Danger Theory- any condition likely present a recurring should be treated as insanity.
Epileptics.
Leading case: Bratty (1963). .
D killed an 18 yr old girl by strangling her. When arrested he said something terrible came over him, an epileptic seizure. Trial judge said this was a plea of insanity, HoL upheld this. Lord Denning: Any mental disorder, which has manifested itself in violence and is prone to recur, is a disease of the mind.
Lord Diplock used a test based on recurrence in:.
Sullivan (1984).