Where a defendant pleads that the act complained of was done in a state of automatism he should be able to show some evidence either coming from the prosecution or from the defence which could be put to the jury and from which the jury could reasonably infer that the act was done in a state of automatism. But the question whether there is or is not such evidence is one for the judge. Where the judge decides that there is no such evidence, no need arises for him to direct the jury on that defence. In this case there is not a tittle of evidence from which a jury can reasonably infer that the appellant inflicted the harm upon his wife in a state of automatism. Consequently there was no need for the trial judge to have directed the jury on that defence. The mere allegation by the appellant unsupported by any other evidence, direct or circumstantial, that he sometimes had an epileptic fit, is not enough evidence of automatism.
DOGO DAGARTI v. THE STATE [1964] GLR 653 [1964] SLR (SC) 62 · Supreme Court · 1964 · OLLENNU JSC
Read it in the judgment