​KembaraXtra-Case Law- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) (1992) CA

​This case is crucial for understanding the defense of automatism in criminal law.

Case Name: Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) (1992) CA
Key Concepts:

• Automatism: A defense where the defendant argues they were not in conscious control of their actions.
• Total Loss of Voluntary Control: The absolute requirement for automatism to be a successful defense.
• Impaired/Reduced Control: Not sufficient for automatism.

Facts of the Case:

• Defendant (D): Lorry driver.
• Charges: Two counts of causing death by reckless driving.
• Incident: D, after driving for six hours, hit a stationary vehicle on the motorway hard shoulder, killing two people.
• D's Claim: Defense of "driving without awareness," essentially automatism.
• D's State: Alleged to be in a state of automatism.

Court's Decision (Held):

• Automatism requires a TOTAL loss of voluntary control.
• Impaired or reduced control is NOT enough to establish automatism.
• Application to D: D was still in some control of the lorry (e.g., steering, partial awareness of the road). Therefore, D did not experience a total loss of voluntary control.

Why this case is important to study:

• It clearly defines the strict threshold for automatism as a defense.
• It distinguishes between total loss of control and mere impaired or reduced control.
• This case is a foundational precedent for assessing claims of automatism in legal contexts.