This column provides an overview of how courts have taken into account seizures and postictal states in terms of assigning criminal responsibility. In England, New Zealand and Australia, courts have generally treated evidence of epileptic seizures and postictal states as raising the defence of mental impairment which often results in indefinite detention. In comparison, there is a series of Canadian cases that have resulted in acquittals after evidence of seizures has been accepted as negating voluntariness or the fault element of the offence. It appears that policy issues have been influential in the Canadian cases, particularly a reluctance to equate epilepsy with "mental disorder".
Keywords: automatism; criminal responsibility.; defence of mental impairment; postictal states.