R v Smith (Stanley)

Facts

Stanley Smith was charged with wounding by stabbing. He said he had been asleep, and that the blows were struck in a state of automatism. Doctors were allowed to give evidence. They said his account to the police, and the account he later gave in the box, were not consistent with being asleep, and that the sequence he described was not physically possible.

Issue

Is expert evidence required before a jury may consider automatism during sleep?

Held

The Court of Appeal proceeded on the footing that it is. A jury cannot, from its own experience, judge whether a series of aimed blows is consistent with sleep. The doctors' evidence was properly admitted, and the defence failed on the facts.

Principle

Non-insane automatism, including an act done in sleep, is outside ordinary experience. The accused must lay a foundation, and that foundation is expert evidence.

Why it matters

Bratty requires the foundation. This is the sleep case. It is not R v George Joseph Smith, the brides in the bath, which is a similar-fact case.

For study only. By lanbuk.com. Always check current sources and consult a qualified professional.