The defendant went to a girl's apartment , while watching video together he attacked her with a bottle of wine and the video recorder and put his hands around her necks.The defendant claimed that he was sleepwalking and plead for the defence of automatism.

The defendant was a nurse in a mental hospital, charged with assaulting a patient. He claimed that he had been acting involuntarily as a result of diabetic hypoglycaemia due to excessive intake of insulin and not taking sufficient food after taking it,  which made him violently aggressive.

The trial judge ruled that this constituted insanity, not automatism. At appeal it was ruled that the trial judge was mistaken, and that diabetic hypoglycaemia was an induced by an external factor, and therefore gave rise to automatism, not insanity.

The defendant, who was a diabetic was charged with taking a car without consent whilst disqualified. His defence was that he was in a hyperglycaemia state which was caused by failure to take his insulin.

The defendant hit the victim on the head with a iron bar. The defendant  who was a diabetic claimed that he was in an automatic state --- hypoglycaemia  because he failed to to take sufficient food after taking insulin.

Automatism , even though it is self - induced , can be a defence for specific intent crimes and it can be a defence to basic intent crimes if D was not reckless in getting into that state.

The defendant was devastated because he just broke up with his ex-girlfriend. He took some valium ( a kind of drug) belonging to his ex-girlfriend, who told him that it would calm him down. After taking it, he started a fire in their flat and he was charged for the offence of criminal damage. ( S1 (2) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971) 

The defendant argued that the effect of the drug prevernted him to have the necessary mens rea for the offence. He was convicted by the trial judge but successfully appealed to the Court of Appeal who quashed his conviction.

Facts:

The Defendant added poison to his mother's drink intending to kill her. His mother drank it but the evidence showed that she died of a heart attack and not because of the poison.

Held:

Defendant was not guilty of murder. Although his mother had died and he did the act with the intention to kill her , his act was not the factual cause of her death. ( note: however he could be guilty of attempted murder)  

not suffice.

Constructive Manslaughter

The defendant is guilty of constructive (or unlawful act) manslaughter if:

Gross Negligence Manslaughter

Diminished Responsibility

Provocation