## Facts

- The case involved a lorry driver who caused a fatal road accident after prolonged driving on motorways.
- The driver claimed to have been in a state of “driving without awareness,” asserting automatism as a defense.
- At trial, the judge directed the jury to acquit if they believed the defendant was not driving consciously.
- The Attorney-General challenged this jury direction and referred the matter to the Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal found the trial judge’s instruction incorrect, which led to the case progressing to the House of Lords.

## Issues

1. Whether a state described as “driving without awareness” can constitute automatism in law.
2. Whether a reduction in awareness, short of total loss of voluntary control, suffices for an automatism defense.
3. How the distinction between internal and external causes affects the availability of the automatism defense in driving offenses.
4. The degree and type of evidence required to establish a legal automatism defense.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that automatism requires total loss of voluntary control; partial loss or reduced awareness is insufficient.
- “Driving without awareness” does not amount to automatism and is not a distinct legal category.
- Internal causes, such as tiredness, leading to impaired awareness, cannot generally ground a defense of automatism unless they amount to a recognized mental illness, in which case the defense would be insanity, not automatism.
- The court emphasized that normal tiredness or stress during driving does not permit a non-insane automatism defense.

## Legal Principles

- Automatism is a denial of the actus reus, requiring lack of voluntary control.
- Only total loss of control, not partial loss or reduced awareness, meets the threshold for automatism.
- Internal causes (e.g., health conditions, tiredness) are dealt with under the insanity defense, while external causes (e.g., trauma, substances) may allow for non-insane automatism.
- The burden is on the defendant to provide credible, usually expert medical evidence to support a claim of automatism.
- The distinction between internal and external causes determines the categorization of the defense (insanity vs non-insane automatism).

## Conclusion

Attorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1992) established that automatism in driving offenses requires proof of total loss of voluntary control, with internal causes such as tiredness generally falling within insanity rather than automatism. Claims of reduced awareness, such as “driving without awareness,” are insufficient for the defense, and credible medical evidence is essential.


Attorney-General's Reference (No. 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91 (HL)