Keoghs was instructed to defend a driver who suffered a medical episode at the wheel and was tragically involved in a fatal road traffic collision. The driver was charged with the offence of Causing Death by Careless Driving. The driver entered a not guilty plea, relying on the defence of automatism. Following a three-day Crown Court trial, the driver was acquitted. Solicitor Melissa Ingram explores the defence of automatism and the narrow circumstances in which it may be successfully advanced.
Automatism is a complete defence which applies where a defendant commits an offence while experiencing a total loss of voluntary control. In motoring cases, a common example is where a defendant suffers a medical episode while driving.
The courts take a narrow approach when considering this defence. There must be evidence of a total loss of control on the part of the defendant; merely impaired or reduced control will not be sufficient.
It is therefore important to carefully examine all available evidence from the scene, including dashcam footage, witness accounts and any forensic collision evidence, in order to establish whether this is consistent with a total loss of control. Any evidence of action immediately before the collision, such as break lights illuminating or steering input, is likely to undermine the defence.
In cases involving a medial episode, it is important to establish whether the defendant was aware that they suffered from a medical condition likely to impair their ability to control a vehicle. If a defendant knowingly continues to drive despite such awareness, this may itself amount to careless behaviour and will undermine the defence.
The same principle applies where a defendant has taken medication which they know, or ought reasonably to know, may impair their driving ability.
For this reason, it is pivotal to have discussions with the driver from the outset regarding their medical history to establish whether they were deemed fit to drive prior to the incident. A careful review of their medical records will be a necessary exercise before relying on the defence of automatism.
At trial, Keoghs was careful to ensure that it was clear to the jury in this case that the defendant was deemed fit to drive and had not suffered any similar episodes in the past.
In order to rely upon the defence of automatism, the defence must lay a proper foundation to evidence a total loss of control. Therefore, the defendant’s account must be supported by strong medical evidence.
In most cases, the prosecution will obtain the opinion of another medical expert to challenge the defence’s position. This will often result in a joint expert process prior to trial. Therefore, it is essential that the defence seeks the opinion of an appropriately qualified and experienced medical expert at an early stage and evaluate whether the medical evidence is strong enough to withstand scrutiny before the court.
In addition to the medical evidence, the use of a forensic collision investigator can be equally important. Data retrieved from the vehicle may support that there was no input immediately before the collision which is consistent with a total loss of control. This evidence can be particularly compelling when supported by witness accounts or dash cam footage, showing that the driver took no action in the moments leading up to the incident.
In this case, Keoghs identified that there was a significant period during which no action was taken by the driver. Had the driver been conscious, it is likely that they would have had sufficient time to react to the presence of other vehicles. In those circumstances, the defence of automatism was consistent with the available evidence and appeared a reasonable explanation to the jury.
The importance of character evidence should not be underestimated. The defendant may appear to have little to add to the case themselves, as they are unlikely to recall the incident due to the total loss of control. However, if appropriate, obtaining evidence that speaks to the defendant’s character may assist the jury in determining whether the defendant’s account is credible.
In this case, Keoghs was able to demonstrate through good character evidence that the driver was a very responsible individual and had a reputation as a safe and experienced driver. The jury appeared to trust the defendant’s account and delivered a unanimous verdict of ‘not guilty.’
In conclusion, the defence of automatism will only apply in a narrow window of circumstances; however, if the defence obtains strong evidence to support a total loss of consciousness that was not caused by the defendant’s own carelessness, the defence may very well prove to be successful.
If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact Melissa Ingram at MJIngram@keoghs.co.uk.
The service you deliver is integral to the success of your business. With the right technology, we can help you to heighten your customer experience, improve underwriting performance, and streamline processes.
