Attorney-General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994]
Share
Attorney-General’s Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91, [1993] 3 WLR 982 is an English criminal law case concerning the application of the defence of automatism. It established that the automatism as a defence requires a total loss of voluntary control.
The appellant, a lorry driver, raised the defence of non-insane automatism after crashing into parked cars on a motorway, resulting in two fatalities. The defence was based on a state described as "driving without awareness", attributed to repetitive visual stimuli on long, straight roads. The jury accepted the defence, leading to an acquittal. The Attorney General referred a point of law to the Court of Appeal regarding whether such a condition could constitute a defence of automatism.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury. The key consideration was whether the described state of "driving without awareness" could qualify as automatism. The court emphasised that the defence of automatism requires a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant's part. Partial or impaired control is insufficient for the defence to apply.
Lord Taylor CJ clarified that the established legal principle, supported by authorities, mandates a complete loss of voluntary control for the defence of automatism. The term "driving without awareness", as described in the case, was deemed insufficient to meet this threshold. The court cited expert evidence acknowledging that individuals in such a state retain some level of control. They can still steer the vehicle and react, returning to full awareness when confronted by significant stimuli.
The ruling highlighted the stringent requirement for a total loss of voluntary control to establish the defence of automatism. In this case, the condition described by the appellant did not meet the necessary criteria, leading to the conclusion that automatism should not have been considered as a valid defence.
The appellant, a lorry driver, raised the defence of non-insane automatism after crashing into parked cars on a motorway, resulting in two fatalities. The defence was based on a state described as "driving without awareness", attributed to repetitive visual stimuli on long, straight roads. The jury accepted the defence, leading to an acquittal. The Attorney General referred a point of law to the Court of Appeal regarding whether such a condition could constitute a defence of automatism.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the defence of automatism should not have been left to the jury. The key consideration was whether the described state of "driving without awareness" could qualify as automatism. The court emphasised that the defence of automatism requires a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant's part. Partial or impaired control is insufficient for the defence to apply.
Lord Taylor CJ clarified that the established legal principle, supported by authorities, mandates a complete loss of voluntary control for the defence of automatism. The term "driving without awareness", as described in the case, was deemed insufficient to meet this threshold. The court cited expert evidence acknowledging that individuals in such a state retain some level of control. They can still steer the vehicle and react, returning to full awareness when confronted by significant stimuli.
The ruling highlighted the stringent requirement for a total loss of voluntary control to establish the defence of automatism. In this case, the condition described by the appellant did not meet the necessary criteria, leading to the conclusion that automatism should not have been considered as a valid defence.
