Death driver walks free due to 'automatism' condition
Discussion
In the newspapers this week:
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
roosevelt said:
In the newspapers this week:
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
It seems that he'll never drive again, and it's not clear how the world would benefit by putting an 89 year-old inside.
flemke said:
It seems that he'll never drive again, and it's not clear how the world would benefit by putting an 89 year-old inside.
Sorry Flemke but you really haven't quite got the hang of the Dail Mail have you? The correct response is either
a) Hanging is too good for him.
b) He should go back where he came from.
c) I don't know what's wrong with youth today
or
d) Say what you like; at least he made the trains run on time.
Under no circumstances should rationality, practicality, humanity or pragmatism be brought to bear.
flemke said:
rustybin said:
flemke said:
It seems that he'll never drive again, and it's not clear how the world would benefit by putting an 89 year-old inside.
b) He should go back where he came from.
And if he came from the boardroom of the Daily Mail?
a) Hanging is too good for him.
You see, they really are all the answers one could ever need
Edited by rustybin on Thursday 22 February 16:58
flemke said:
roosevelt said:
In the newspapers this week:
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=437471&in_page_id=1770
how shocking is this, if 'automatism' can occur randomly(?) surely no one should be driving. Anyone more sure of the medical circumstances surrounding this occurence?
Articlae states it can be used as a defence in a criminal action, can speeding offences classed as criminal?
Discuss;
It seems that he'll never drive again, and it's not clear how the world would benefit by putting an 89 year-old inside.
Whats the point of putting anyone inside for a similar or even lesser charge?
How is the public interest served by fining speeders when no actual harm has come from their actions?
I think we were agreeing in a round about way...
death by highly dangerous driving should put somebody inside, he was more than 3 times over the speed limit and overtook in to the path of an oncoming car killing both occupants
bear in mind the gent in question is from an exceptionally wealthy family (he himself used to be a chairman of TVR) lets just assume that the best possible legal defence was mounted and its been agreed he had a momentary lack of control as is being suggested. It puts a strong case forward for driving re-tests after the age of 70.
If a 89 year old decided to molest a child or go out with a gun and start shooting up a school we wouldnt all think it would be bad to lock him up - imho its no different in this case.
Bennno
death by highly dangerous driving should put somebody inside, he was more than 3 times over the speed limit and overtook in to the path of an oncoming car killing both occupants
bear in mind the gent in question is from an exceptionally wealthy family (he himself used to be a chairman of TVR) lets just assume that the best possible legal defence was mounted and its been agreed he had a momentary lack of control as is being suggested. It puts a strong case forward for driving re-tests after the age of 70.
If a 89 year old decided to molest a child or go out with a gun and start shooting up a school we wouldnt all think it would be bad to lock him up - imho its no different in this case.
Bennno
Edited by bennno on Thursday 22 February 20:17
Where a person's movements are beyond his/her control or his/her actions are brought about involuntarily, he/she will not generally be liable at criminal law as the element of actus reus is not present.
Example automatism.
Definition. Automatism occurs where the defendant is temporarily deprived of his/her ability to control his/her movemnts. When this happens to a driver of a vehicle it may remove liability for certain offences such as driving without due care. This is because there is no willed action or omission by the defendant. It is also highly unlikely that they would have had the required state of mind.
Such a situation might be brought about by a swarm of bees flying in through an open window of a moving car, or the driver lapsing into a coma Hill V Baxter 1958.
If the driver has a medical condition which means they are prone to effects which might impair their driving ability, (such as dizziness R V Sibbles 1959) they have a duty to avoid driving when symptoms are likely.
Similarly a diabetic continues to drive whilst experiencing the start of a hypoglycaemic episode it is unlikely that the defence of automatism will be available to them and they should have stopped driving until the episode passed. Moses v Winder 1981.
Similarly where such loss of voluntary movement or control is brought about by failing to take medication or drinking then again automatism not available as a defence R v Quick 1973.
Also driving in a state of reduced awareness brought on by focussing on a long featureless road is not enough to raise the automatism defence.
(Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1993] RTR 337))
I am aware that in our county the intention to raise the defence of automatism due to a sneeze has made a few cases of speeding be dropped where the margin over the limit is so low that it could have resulted in a blip, but that is from prosecutions by the hated partnership so I couldn't give a sh.. about them frankly. Never made it to case law afaik.
edited much later to correct appalling typos.
Example automatism.
Definition. Automatism occurs where the defendant is temporarily deprived of his/her ability to control his/her movemnts. When this happens to a driver of a vehicle it may remove liability for certain offences such as driving without due care. This is because there is no willed action or omission by the defendant. It is also highly unlikely that they would have had the required state of mind.
Such a situation might be brought about by a swarm of bees flying in through an open window of a moving car, or the driver lapsing into a coma Hill V Baxter 1958.
If the driver has a medical condition which means they are prone to effects which might impair their driving ability, (such as dizziness R V Sibbles 1959) they have a duty to avoid driving when symptoms are likely.
Similarly a diabetic continues to drive whilst experiencing the start of a hypoglycaemic episode it is unlikely that the defence of automatism will be available to them and they should have stopped driving until the episode passed. Moses v Winder 1981.
Similarly where such loss of voluntary movement or control is brought about by failing to take medication or drinking then again automatism not available as a defence R v Quick 1973.
Also driving in a state of reduced awareness brought on by focussing on a long featureless road is not enough to raise the automatism defence.
(Attorney General's Reference (No 2 of 1992) [1993] RTR 337))
I am aware that in our county the intention to raise the defence of automatism due to a sneeze has made a few cases of speeding be dropped where the margin over the limit is so low that it could have resulted in a blip, but that is from prosecutions by the hated partnership so I couldn't give a sh.. about them frankly. Never made it to case law afaik.
edited much later to correct appalling typos.
Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 23 February 09:18
FIF is on the money, as usual.
I’ve had a quick scan through the net but can’t find what I’m looking for; am I right in concluding that there’s no way to disprove that such an attack had actually occurred, or that there was no reasonable warning of one?
It’s good that the driver has opted never to drive again, but I would have thought that the judge would have ruled him to be ‘at risk’ so banning him anyway?
I’ve had a quick scan through the net but can’t find what I’m looking for; am I right in concluding that there’s no way to disprove that such an attack had actually occurred, or that there was no reasonable warning of one?
It’s good that the driver has opted never to drive again, but I would have thought that the judge would have ruled him to be ‘at risk’ so banning him anyway?
Ta for comment smeggy.
I'm not a medic but let us say his condition was indeed caused by blockage of blood vessels due to a clot. I recall there are blood tests which can detect if clots have been present for some time after the event, even if the clots themselves have gone, not sure how long afterwards the test is valid though.
What I do know is from an episode during my own life.
Long story short but there was an episode of about 4 hours due to a medical conditon. I have no recollection whatsoever of anything which happened. I'm told that apart from a significant memory loss issue I was acting normally and acting safely, but I only know about it because of what I've been told. No warning whatsoever. Wasn't driving at the time. After the 4 hours everyting back to normal. Scarily odd and insignificant things different afterwards, bit like the Hamster after his crash suddenly liking celery.
In that case I banned myself from driving etc until the medical investigation was completed and explanation found. In my view if I had had another incident while driving and something happened could not have forgiven myself and would probably in that completely hypothetical situation have done the same as the guy in this case, i.e. sent my licence back to Swansea.
I'm not a medic but let us say his condition was indeed caused by blockage of blood vessels due to a clot. I recall there are blood tests which can detect if clots have been present for some time after the event, even if the clots themselves have gone, not sure how long afterwards the test is valid though.
What I do know is from an episode during my own life.
Long story short but there was an episode of about 4 hours due to a medical conditon. I have no recollection whatsoever of anything which happened. I'm told that apart from a significant memory loss issue I was acting normally and acting safely, but I only know about it because of what I've been told. No warning whatsoever. Wasn't driving at the time. After the 4 hours everyting back to normal. Scarily odd and insignificant things different afterwards, bit like the Hamster after his crash suddenly liking celery.
In that case I banned myself from driving etc until the medical investigation was completed and explanation found. In my view if I had had another incident while driving and something happened could not have forgiven myself and would probably in that completely hypothetical situation have done the same as the guy in this case, i.e. sent my licence back to Swansea.
smeggy said:
It’s good that the driver has opted never to drive again, but I would have thought that the judge would have ruled him to be ‘at risk’ so banning him anyway?
But he hasn't been convicted of anything. He would need to be convicted for the judge to do so, surely?
imbecile said:
smeggy said:
It’s good that the driver has opted never to drive again, but I would have thought that the judge would have ruled him to be ‘at risk’ so banning him anyway?
But he hasn't been convicted of anything. He would need to be convicted for the judge to do so, surely?
Yup. I only realised that afterwards; the judge can't do much if the prosecutors back off.
guam said:
Difficult one for the Legal System IMHO, if true (however tragic) then he is not culpable due to him being unaware of his actions. I do feel he should have been banned for life though, as if he is relying on the defence and there can be no certainty it will not happen again, then a statutory ban in the interests of public safety would be reasonable to impose imho.
If not true, then would I be right in assuming that now that the double jeapourdy rule has gone, he could be retried if it came to light he was making it up?
Cheers
Tom
The ending of so-called "double jeopardy" (actually autrefois acquit) by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 applies only to 30 serious crimes - including murder, rape, Class A drug offences and war crimes. Double jeopardy remains in force for lesser offences. Actually, the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 lifted the absolute bar on a case being reopened after acquittal under certain limited circumstances for a prosecution appeal, for example where the intimidation of either witnesses or jury had affected the outcome of a trial. No retrials have been sought under that provision, but there have been successful retrials as a result of lifting the bar on double jeopardy - Streaky If not true, then would I be right in assuming that now that the double jeapourdy rule has gone, he could be retried if it came to light he was making it up?
Cheers
Tom
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff