Abstract
Automatism is a common law defence based on the principle that a person who commits a crime involuntarily is not criminally responsible for their actions. Over time the doctrine has evolved into distinct categories of sane and insane automatism, without a finding of sane automatism triggering an acquittal, and insane automatism enlivening mental illness provisions. Recently, a phenomenon known as sexsomnia has started to appear in criminal courts as a discrete aspect of the automatism defence. This article examines the decisions in R v DB which resulted in an acquittal and explores some of the problems associated with sexsomnia when the issue comes before criminal courts.