| 单词 | Automatism |
| 释义 | 無意識行為 A state in which the mind or will of a person does not accompany the person’s action, where such a state exists, there is no mens rea because the act of the accused is not voluntary in that it did not result from the accused’s conscious volition: Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 383 (HL). A total destruction of voluntary control of the defendant is required, reduced or partial reduction of control is insufficient: R v Chan Tak Kwong [1997] 1 HKC 478 (HC). Acts done under uncontrollable impulse are not involuntary: Pang Bang Yee v R [1984] HKLR 298 (CA). An adequate foundation of evidence, usually by medical or scientific evidence, is required before automatism could be left to the jury: R v Yeung Pak Lun [1982] HKC 184 (CA); R v Mohammad Hussain [1993] 1 HKCLR 1 (CA). Where there is evidence of automatism, the prosecution must have the burden of proving that such a state did not exist. Automatism may be sane or insane and may be induced by diabetes, epilepsy, and concussion, or by intoxication: Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland, supra. See also Actus reus; Insane Automatism; Intoxication; Sane automatism. 如一人是在他／她失去精神或意願的狀態下行事的，則該人沒有犯罪意圖，因為被告的行為並非是在自願的情況下作出的，即被告的行為並非出於其本身有意識的意願：Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland [1963] AC 383 (上議院)。須證明被告是完全失去自願控制的能力，局部失去控制並不充分：R v Chan Tak Kwong [1997] 1 HKC 478 (高等法院)。因不可控制的衝動而作出的行為並非非自願的行為：Pang Bang Yee v R [1984] HKLR 298 (上訴法庭)。在可由陪審團就自動作用作出裁定之前，須有充分的證據基礎(通常是醫學或科學的證據)：R v Yeung Pak Lun [1982] HKC 184 (上訴法庭); R v Mohammad Hussain [1993] 1 HKCLR 1 (上訴法庭)。如有自動作用的證據，則控方須有此等狀態並不存在的舉證責任，自動作用可以是在神志正常或神志不正常情況下作出的，並可因糖尿病、癲癇、腦震盪或昏醉所導致：Bratty v A-G for Northern Ireland, 見上文。另見 Actus reus; Insane Automatism; Intoxication; Sane automatism。 n. |
| 随便看 |
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。