Attorney-General’s Reference (No.

2 of 1992)
Court of Appeal
27 May 1993
[1994] Q.B. 91

Key issues: Automatism, Death by Reckless Driving

Facts:
The defendant, the driver of a HGV, who had been driving for six of the past twelve
hours (having taken all the breaks required by the law) drove along the hard shoulder,
before crashing into another vehicle, a broken down car, killing two people. He was
tried for Dangerous Driving and acquitted, based on his defence of automatism. This
stated that due to the monotonous nature of long motorway driving, he entered into a
state of semi-consciousness, where he was not, it was argued, in full control of his
actions; this was termed ‘driving without awareness.’ Medical evidence was called at
the trial which led to the conclusion that the defendant was able to retain a degree of
control, through being able to keep within the lines of the hard shoulder and operate
the controls of the vehicle, but his mind was operating at a reduced level. The jury,
being left to consider this defence, acquitted the defendant. The case was referred to
the Court of Appeal by the Attorney-General under the Criminal Justice Act 1972 s.
36, regarding whether ‘driving without awareness’ could found a defence of
automatism.
Held:
(1) That the decision on whether the defendant was operating within a state of
automatism should never have been given to the jury.
(2) That since the defendant did not lose complete voluntary control of the
vehicle, i.e. he was able to keep the truck within the hard shoulder, the defence
of automatism was not applicable.
Principles:
(1) That being in a state of “driving without awareness” does not constitute
automatism, as a defence. Retention of even partial control does not fulfill the
requirement that all voluntary control is lost.
(2) Before a jury can decide on the defence of automatism, the defence must first
be built on an evidential foundation.