Analysis of the Position of "Automatism" under Iranian Criminal Law and Common Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

2 M. A. in Criminal Law and Criminology, Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract

Introduction
Since the brain's control over bodily organs is fundamentally governed by individual will, every bodily movement is attributed to the brain, and every brain command is attributed to the individual's will. While there is no doubt that all movements are controlled by the brain, there remains the possibility that the brain may automatically issue action commands to the body without conscious will. One example of such involuntary behavior is "automatism," which has emerged in Western legal systems as an independent defense against criminal charges. In Persian, "automatism" has been translated as "involuntarily," "unwillingness," and "spontaneous movement." This article adopts the latter translation as the most accurate. The primary objective of this article is to answer the following questions: What is the concept and position of automatism in common law, and what approach can be adopted regarding this matter under Iranian law?
Methods
This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the subject. The required data were primarily collected through library research, including books and academic articles. Additionally, relevant judicial decisions from the common law system were analyzed to provide a comprehensive and precise assessment of various aspects of the topic. This approach enables comparative analysis and critique of both theoretical and practical foundations.
Results
Automatism, which manifests solely as an act, occurs without will, is uncontrollable, unpreventable, and lacks prior planning or prediction. In essence, the action in automatism is attributed to the perpetrator's body rather than to their will or personality. This explanation suggests that automatism possesses two concurrent characteristics, with the predominance of one over the other influencing its perception as a defense: (1) the action originates from the doer, and (2) the action occurs without the doer's will. The article contends that what negates responsibility in such acts is that the act "occurred through" the person rather than being "committed by" them. In other words, while the "act" may be attributed to a person, the "criminal act" cannot be.
In common law, within the discussion of general defenses (justifications and excuses), the term "automatism" appears alongside other defenses such as mistake, insanity, intoxication, self-defense, and necessity. The common law legal system recognizes various factors—along with their resulting criminal acts—under the doctrine of automatism as grounds for negating criminal responsibility. These factors include sudden bodily movements caused by collisions with objects or animals, the use of certain drugs, internal conditions affecting brain function, actions committed while intoxicated or asleep, and conduct occurring immediately after waking or under the influence of terrifying dreams.
In Iranian legal sources, automatism has not been explicitly recognized as a general defense negating defendant responsibility, remaining largely unknown in both legislation and judicial decisions. Some scholars have attempted to classify automatism as a form of internal force; however, this interpretation faces significant objections. While "force" is not explicitly addressed in the Islamic Penal Code of 2013, Iranian law considers it from a jurisprudential perspective. Jurisprudential conceptions of force only encompass certain examples recognized under common law—specifically, external material force. Other forms of force recognized in common law (such as necessity or duress) are treated as independent concepts in jurisprudence. Consequently, automatism cannot be categorized under internal force (whether mental or material), as Iranian law does not recognize internal force as a jurisprudential concept. This article briefly compares automatism with concepts of force, necessity, and insanity under Iranian law.
Conclusion
The status of attribution based on jurisprudential regulations and rules varies in cases of automatism: for some crimes, it may alter the type of responsibility, while for others, it may render responsibility unstable. This article, while examining automatism's position in common law, has determined its potential role in Iranian criminal law and concludes that the legislator should formally recognize automatism as one of the established general defenses.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Ahmadizadeh, S. H., Mahmoudi Janaki, F., & Sheidaeian, M. (2022). The Principle of Equity in Jurisprudence and Criminal Law of Iran. Comparative Criminal Jurisprudence, 2(4), 101-110. DOI: 10.22034/jccj.2022.366309.1113. [In Persian]

    Akefi, L., Iravanian, A., & Paknahad, A. (2023). The Scope of Mental Disorder Defense in the Criminal Systems of Iran and the United States of America. Journal of Legal Studies, 15(2), 73-110. DOI: 10.22099/jls.2023.41777.4528. [In Persian]

    Allameh Helli, J. H. (2000). Tahrir al-Ahkam. First Edition. Qom: Institute of Imam Sadiq. [In Arabic]

    Amid Zanjani, A. A. (2009). The Rules of Jurisprudence. Vol. 2. First Edition. Tehran: Samt. [In Persian]

    Ardebili, M. A. (2020). General Criminal Law. Vol. 1. 62th Edition. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]

    Ashworth, A.(1387). Principles of criminal law, Fifth edition, Tehran: Mizan.

    Baheri, M. (Dateless). (Prescriptions) General Criminal Law. Tehran: Elmi Brothers. [In Persian]

    Barker, D. &  padfield,c.(1382) .Law made simple, Tehran: Mizan.

    Bashiriyeh, T. (2008). The Interaction of Legal and Psychiatric Concepts of Insanity. Law Quarterly, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences of Tehran University, 38(3), 85-95. DOR: 20.1001.1.25885618.1387.38.3.5.6. [In Persian]

    Beran, R. G.(2020). “Automatism–A case of reality testing. Forensic Science International: Mind and Law, 1(1), 100019. DOI:10.1016/j.fsiml.2020.100019

    Black, H. C.(2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. 9-th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson Reuters.

    Blair, D.(1997). The medicolegal aspects of automatism. Medicine, Science & the Law, 17,167–182. DOI: 10.1177/002580247701700304

    Brown,W.J.(1382). Gcse law, 7th edition.Tehran: Majd

    Clarkson, C. (2019). Analysis of the Basics of General Criminal Law. Translated by Hossein Mir Mohammad Sadeghi. Third Edition. Tehran: Jungle. [In Persian]

    Dictionary of Law Oxford (2002). Oxford University Press.

    Ebrahim, I.O., & Fenwick, P.(2008). Sleep-related automatism and the law. Medicine, Science and the Law, 48(2), 124-136. DOI:10.1258/rsmmsl.48.2.124

    Elliott, C. & Quinn, F. (2008). Criminal Law. Translated by Ava Vahedi Navaei and Nastaran Ghazanfari. First Edition. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]

    Fenwick, P.(1990). Automatism, medicine and the law, psychol med monograph suppl, 17. 1–27. DOI: 10.1017/s0264180100000758

    Gholamreza Ravi, H., & Yosefvand, M. (2018). Effect of Force Majeure in Murder or Injury Arising from Omission. Journal of Studies in Islamic Law & Jurisprudence, 10(18), 133-154. DOI: 10.22075/feqh.2017.7696. [In persian]

    Goldouzian, I. (1997). Iranian General Criminal Law. Vol. 2. Fourth Edition. Tehran: Jihad University. [In Persian]

    Gordon, Gerald H.(2000). The Criminal Law of Scotland. Vol.I. Edinburg: W. Green.

    Gorji, A. (2007). Legal Articles. Fourth Edition. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Affairs. [In Persian]

    Hekmat, S. (1991). Criminal Psychiatry. First Edition. Tehran: Gutenberg. [In Persian]

    Hooshyar, M., Zare, M., & Ramezani, M. (2020). The Effects and Conditions of Act of God in the Imamieh Jurisprudence and Iranian Civil Law. Academic Journal of Knowledge and Research of Law, 6(1), 119-146. DOI: 10.22055/ajkrl.2022.38564.1069. [In Persian]

    Hosseini Rouhani, S. M. S. (2008). Al-Sadiq Jurisprudence. First Edition. Qom: Manshoorat al-Ijtihad. [In Arabic]

    Jennings, John.(1962). The Growth and Development of Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 2(3). 370-382. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.2496

    Khoei, S. A. Q. (Dateless). Basics of Takmulat al-Minhaj. The second part. Lebanon: Dar al-Zahra Beirut. [In Arabic]

    Khomeini, S. R. (Dateless). Tahrir al-Wasilah. First Edition. Qom: Dar al-Alam Press. [In Arabic]

    Farrokh Siri, M. (1997). Dictionary of Criminal Terms. Vol. 1. First Edition. Bandar Abbas: Chichika. [In Persian]

    Feyz, A. (1997). Islamic General Criminal Law. Vol. 1. Second Edition. Tehran: Ministry of Culture and Islamic Affairs. [In Persian]

    Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, H. (1997). Dictionary of Criminal Law. Second Edition. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]

    Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, H. (1999). Classification of Delinquent Children in the English Penal System. Legal Research Quarterly. 2(25-26). 151-157. [In Persian]

    Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, H. (2020). Crimes Against Persons. 28th Edition. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]

    Mir Mohammad Sadeghi, H. (2022). General Criminal Law, Vol. 2. Second Edition. Tehran: Dadgostar Press. [In Persian]

    Moghaddasi, R. & Moazadi, A. A. & Qutbuddin, Z. (2021).» Epilepsy: Mechanisms of Seizures and Epilepsy«. Iranian Journal of Biology (Scientific). 5(10). 142-148. DOR: 20.1001.1.20089406.1400.5.10.17.5. [In Persian]

    Mohaghegh Helli, N. M. I. H. (1989). Sharayee al-Islam. First Edition. Beirut: Dar al-Zahra. [In Arabic]

    Mustafawi, S. M. K. (2001). Rules, A hundred Jurisprudential Rule. Fourth Edition. Qom: Islamic. [In Arabic]

    Najafi, M. H. I. B. I. A. N. (1948). Jawaher al-Kalam. Third Edition. Tehran: Dar al-Kotob al-Islamiyah. [In Arabic]

    Rix, K. J.(2015). The common law defence of automatism: A quagmire for the psychiatrist. BJPsych Advances, 21(4), 242-250. DOI:10.1192/apt.bp.113.012146

    Rumbold, J.(2013). Automatism and driving offences. Journal of forensic and legal medicine, 20(7), 825-829. DOI:10.1016/j.jflm.2013.06.014

    Rumbold, J.(2019). Automatism as a Defence in Criminal Law. First published, New York: Routledge

    Sadeghi, M. H., & Tanhaei, F. (2017). The Nature of the Freewill and Its Role in Criminal Law. Journal of Criminal Law Research, 6(21), 39-72. DOI: 10.22054/jclr.2018.12430.1217. [In Persian]

    Safaei, H. (1985). Force Majeure, Overview in Comparative Law and International Law and International Commercial Contracts. International Law Review, (3), 110-149. DOI: 10.22066/CILAMAG.1985.18456. [In Persian]

    Saneei, P. (1993). General Criminal Law. Vol. 1. Fifth Edition. Tehran: Ganj Danesh. [In Persian]

    Saneei, P. (1993). General Criminal Law. Vol. 2. Fifth Edition. Tehran: Ganj Danesh. [In Persian]

    Scheb.John M.& SchebII.John M.(2001). Crimmal law. First Edition. Tehran: Dadgostar.

    Shahid Awal, M. I. J. M. (1986). Al-Loma al-Dameshqiyah. First Edition. Qom: Dar al-Naser. [In Arabic]

    Shahid Thani, Z. A. A. I. A. A. (1993). Masalek al-Afham. First Edition. Qom: Institute of Al-Maarif al-Islamiyah. [In Arabic]

    Shahid Thani, Z. A. A. I. A. A. (Dateless). Al-Rawzat al-Bahiyah Fi Sharh al-Loma al-Damshqiyah. First Edition. Isfahan: Imam Amir al-Mominin School. [In Arabic]

    Shambayati, H. (1996). General Criminal Law. Vol. 2. Sixth Edition. Tehran: Wistar. [In Persian]

    Shirazi, S. M. (1989). Jurisprudence. Second Edition. Beirut: Dar al-Uloom. [In Arabic]

    Swaiman, K. F., Ashwal, S., Ferriero, D. M., Schor, N. F., Finkel, R. S., Gropman, A. L., ... & Shevell, M.(2017). Swaiman's pediatric neurology e-book: Principles and practice. Sixth Edition. Elsevier Health Sciences.

    Validi, M. S. (2003). Criminal Liability. Third Edition. Tehran: Amir Kabir. [In Persian]

    Yeo, S. (2002). Clarifying automatism. International journal of law and psychiatry, 25(5), 445-458. DOI:10.1016/S0160-2527(01)00113-3

     

    Cases:

    Attorney-general’s reference(No. 2 of 1992). QB 1994:91.

    Bratty v. Attorney-General for Northern Ireland, 1963 A.C. 386(1963).

    Hill v. Baxter, 1958 Q.B.1 277 (1958).

    R v Bailey, 1983 1 WLR 760 (1983).

    R v Bingham, 1991 Crim LR 43 (1991).

    1. v. Charlson, 1955 All E.R.1 859 (1955).

    R v. Hardie, 1984 All E.R.3 835 (1984).

    R v. Hennessy, 1989 1 WLR 297 (1989)

    R v. Lipman, 1970 Q.B.1 152 (1970).

    R v. Quick, 1973 All E.R.3 347 (1973).

     R v. Sullivan, 1984 A.C. 156 (1984).

     

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics