Verschoor, T.Lambrechts, Hein2015-09-012015-09-012005-112005-112005-11http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1104English: A controlled, voluntary human act is the basic element of criminal liability. If the act is not subject to the will, it is involuntary and excludes the act and therefore criminal liability. This defence is known as automatism. This condition of involuntariness can arise as a result of insanity or due to reasons other than insanity. If the accused were insane at the time of committing the offence and he successfully raises an automatism defence, he is sent for mandatory confinement in a psychiatric institution. The problem created by this legal provision of mandatory confinement is that an accused who was insane at the time of the crime, but sane at the time of the trial, must be confined in a psychiatric institution even though he is considered sane. In order to avoid this injustice, the courts have distinguished between “insane automatism” and “sane automatism.” Cases where an involuntary action has occurred for reasons other than insanity have involved a defence of "sane automatism” and, if successful, have resulted in full acquittal. The reason for creating the term “sane automatism” was to avoid the said unjustified functioning of the law. Courts worldwide have approached this defence with caution, as it can easily be abused. In Canada there is such strong objection to the sane automatism defence that all cases of automatism are forced into the category of insane automatism in order to protect the public. The protection of the public against dangerous criminals therefore enjoys priority over pursuit of the accused individual’s possible innocence and freedom. The excessive use of the insane automatism defence to this end has resulted in sane automatism becoming legal fiction in Canada. Amendments to legislation in South Africa have given courts wider discretion and they are no longer compelled to confine the accused to a psychiatric institution. The legislation is no longer unjust, with the result that the distinction between “insane automatism” and “sane automatism” is no longer necessary. The position of the courts in the United Kingdom is very similar to that in South Africa. UK courts also have wider discretion in their judgements, and the defence of automatism in the United Kingdom is restricted to cases where there was a total loss of volition. Impaired or reduced volition is not sufficient. The distinction between insane and sane automatism is also applied here, and both external and internal factors are considered when determining the type of automatism. In Australia too little attention is given to the conative mental faculty. An unconscious act may lead to involuntariness, but this is not necessary always the case. A person may also act involuntarily and be conscious of his/her actions. In Australia the courts are inclined to consider only the cognitive mental faculty. Both the cognitive and conative mental faculties must be considered. A wilful act indicates the cognitive mental faculty, i.e. the person was conscious and aware of what he/she was doing. An intended act, on the contrary, indicates the ability of the person to control his/her actions, i.e. the so-called conative mental faculty. The automatism defence (no longer "sane automatism") must still be retained, but as an ordinary defence that is indicative of an involuntary act, and therefore the absence of one of the elements of a crime (but without a specific indication of whether it is sane or insane automatism). Automatism must therefore be limited to grounds for exclusion of the element of an act, i.e. the voluntary and personal conduct of the accused.Afrikaans: ‘n Beheersde, willekeurige menslike handeling is die grondelement van strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid. Indien die handeling nie vatbaar is vir wilsbeheer nie, is dit onwillekeurig en sluit dit die handeling uit en uiteraard ook strafregtelike aanspreeklikheid. Hierdie verweer staan bekend as outomatisme. Die toestand van onwillekeurigheid kan ontstaan as gevolg van ‘n geestesongesteldheid of weens ander redes as geestesongesteldheid. Indien die beskuldigde geestesongesteld was ten tye van die pleeg van die misdryf, en hy slaag met ‘n verweer van outomatisme, is die beskuldigde gestuur vir verpligte aanhouding by ‘n inrigting vir geestesongesteldes. Die probleem wat geskep is deur hierdie wetsbepaling van verpligte aanhouding, is dat ‘n beskuldigde wat ten tye van die misdaadspleging geestesongesteld was, maar ten tye van die verhoor reeds weer geestesgesond was, steeds gestuur moes word vir aanhouding, al was hy normaal. Ten einde hierdie onbillikheid te omseil, het die howe ‘n onderskeid begin tref tussen “siek outomatisme” en “gesonde outomatisme.” Gevalle waar die onwillekeurige handeling ontstaan het weens ‘n ander rede as geestesongesteldheid, het gelei tot ‘n verweer van “gesonde outomatisme” en indien suksesvol, tot algehele vryspraak. Die rede waarom die begrip “gesonde outomatisme” geskep is, was dus om die onbillike werking van die wetgewing te omseil. Hierdie verweer is baie krities deur die howe wêreldwyd benader, omdat sodanige verweer maklik misbruik kan word. In Kanada is daar soveel teenkanting teen die verweer van gesonde outomatisme, dat alle outomatismes gedwing is in die kategorie van siek outomatisme, ten einde die publiek te beskerm. Die beskerming van die publiek teen gevaarlike misdadigers geniet dus voorrang bo die soektog na die individu se moontlike onskuld en vryheid. Die oormatige gebruik van die verweer van siek outomatisme het daartoe gelei dat die verweer van gesonde outomatisme ‘n regsfiksie in Kanada geword het. Wetswysigings in Suid-Afrika het daartoe aanleiding gegee dat die howe tans ‘n wyer diskresie het en nie meer verplig is om die betrokke persoon vir aanhouding by ‘n inrigting vir geestesongesteldes te stuur nie. Die onbillikheid in die wetgewing bestaan nie meer nie en die resultaat is dat die onderskeid tussen “siek outomatisme”en “gesonde outomatisme” dus nie meer nodig is nie.Die posisie in Engeland is baie soortgelyk aan dié in Suid-Afrika waar die howe ook ‘n wyer diskresie het by uitsprake. Die verweer van outomatisme in Engeland is beperk tot gevalle waar daar ‘n totale verlies van beheer is. Aangetaste of ‘n verminderde mate van beheer is nie voldoende nie. Die onderskeid tussen sieklike en gesonde outomatisme word ook hier aangetref en eksterne en interne faktore word aangewend om die soort outomatisme te bepaal. In Australië word te min klem gelê op die kognitiewe geesteselement. ‘n Onbewustelike handeling kan lei tot onwillekeurigheid, maar dit is nie noodwendig altyd die geval nie. ‘n Persoon kan egter ook onwillekeurig optree, en steeds bewus wees van sy optrede. In Australië is die howe steeds geneig om slegs na die konatiewe geesteselement te kyk. Beide die kognitiewe en die konatiewe geesteselemente moet in ag geneem word. ‘n Wilsgerigte handeling dui op die kognitiewe geesteselement, nl. dat die persoon by sy bewussyn was en geweet het wat hy doen. ‘n Wilsbeheerde handeling, daarenteen, dui op die vermoë van die persoon om sy handeling te kan beheer, die sg. konatiewe geesteselement. Die verweer van outomatisme (nie meer “gesonde outomatisme” nie) behoort egter steeds behoue te bly, maar as ‘n gewone verweer wat aanduidend is van ‘n onwillekeurige optrede, en dus afwesigheid van die handelingselement – maar sonder die spesifieke aanduiding of dit ‘n sieklike dan wel ‘n gesonde outomatisme was. Outomatisme moet dus beperk word tot ‘n uitsluitingsgrond van die handelingselement, d.w.s. die willekeurige en persoonlike gedraging.afThesis (LL.D. (Criminal and Medical Law))--University of the Free State, 2005.Criminal liabilityAutomatismCriminal intentThesisUniversity of the Free State