“Automatism requires totally involuntary conduct; insanity defence available for mental disease causing automatism.”
Bratty was charged with murder after strangling a girl. He claimed he had acted in a state of automatism, possibly due to psychomotor epilepsy, and had no conscious control over his actions. Medical evidence suggested he may have suffered from a form of epilepsy.
What constitutes automatism in criminal law, how to distinguish between insane and non-insane automatism, and what legal tests apply to determine involuntariness of conduct.
The House of Lords held that automatism requires conduct that is totally involuntary, and that automatism caused by a disease of the mind constitutes insanity rather than non-insane automatism.
This foundational case established the modern legal framework for automatism and insanity defences in English criminal law. It remains the leading authority on distinguishing between different types of automatism and continues to influence how courts approach involuntary conduct defences.
You're reading the free summary of Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Bratty v Attorney General for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 386
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.