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

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.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal