​KembaraXtra-Case Law-Broome v Perkins (1987) QBD - Automatism

​Key Legal Principle: This case clarifies the stringent requirements for successfully invoking the defense of automatism, particularly when actions are not wholly involuntary.
Facts of the Case:

• Defendant (D): Charged with driving without due care and attention.
• Driving Behavior: D drove erratically for five to six miles along a familiar route.
• D's Claim: D, a diabetic, asserted he was experiencing hypoglycemia during the driving period and had no memory after the initial moments of his journey.

Court's Decision (Held):

• D should have been convicted.

Reasoning of the Court:

• For the defense of automatism to apply, the defendant's actions must be completely involuntary.
• If, at any point during the erratic driving, D's actions were voluntary, or if D's mind occasionally exerted some control over their limbs, then the actions were not purely automatic.
• Therefore, D was not entitled to the defense of automatism.

Key Takeaways for Study:

• Automatism Defined: A state where the defendant performs physical acts without conscious thought or control, often due to an external factor or internal physical condition (like hypoglycemia in this case).
• Strict Application: The courts apply the defense of automatism very strictly.
• Partial Control is Insufficient: Even fleeting moments of conscious control or voluntariness negate the defense of automatism. The actions must be wholly involuntary for the defense to succeed.
• Burden of Proof: While the prosecution must prove the actus reus and mens rea, the defense usually bears the evidential burden of raising the issue of automatism.
• Relevance to "Driving Without Due Care": This case highlights that even if a medical condition contributes to erratic driving, if there's any demonstrable level of conscious control or voluntary action, the defendant can still be held liable for offenses requiring a lower mental element, like "due care and attention."