Facts: The respondent was the driver of a heavy goods lorry. He had been driving six out of the proceeding 12 hours and covered 343 miles when he steered onto the hard shoulder of a motorway. He crashed into a stationery white van. Two people were killed. The tyre marks indicated that the respondent's lorry had braked only at the very last minute. He raised the defence of non-insane automatism based on "driving without awareness" induced by "repetitive visual stimulus experienced on long journeys on straight flat roads". He was acquitted by the jury, but th Attorney-General referred the case to the Court of Appeal.

Held: The state described as "driving without awareness" was not capable of founding a defence of automatism.

• Lord Taylor CJ: "As the authorities … show, the defence of automatism requires that there was a total destruction of voluntary control on the defendant's part. Impaired, reduced or partial control is not enough. Professor Brown [who gave expert evidence for the respondent] accepted that someone "driving without awareness" within his description, retains some control. He would be able to steer the vehicle and usually to react and return to full awareness when confronted by significant stimuli."