Hill v Baxter
Automatism requires a total destruction of voluntary control, and a driver who claimed to be in a trance could not rely on it without evidence.
Facts
Mr Hill drove through a junction without stopping at a halt sign and crashed into another car. He said that he remembered nothing after a point several miles before the junction, and that he had been overcome by some sudden illness. He was charged with dangerous driving. The magistrates acquitted him on the basis of automatism.
Legal principle
The Divisional Court held that the magistrates should have convicted him. A defendant who relies on automatism must lay a proper foundation for it, usually by medical evidence, and there was no such evidence here. Lord Goddard CJ gave examples of situations where a driver could not be said to be driving, such as being struck by a stone or attacked by a swarm of bees, causing him to lose control. The case is an important early authority on the defence of non insane automatism.
Related cases on defences: insanity, automatism and intoxication
- Attorney General for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349
- Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1994] QB 91
- DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443
- M'Naghten's Case (1843) 10 Cl & F 200
- R v Bailey [1983] 1 WLR 760
- R v Burgess [1991] 2 QB 92
- R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] EWCA Crim 223
- R v Hardie [1985] 1 WLR 64
Studying criminal law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
