Case Comment
| Published date | 01 June 1978 |
| Date | 01 June 1978 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/000486587801100207 |
| Subject Matter | Case Report |
AUST &NZ JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (June 1978) 11(113-116)
CASE
COMMENT
Morris v Pickett, Heidelberg Magistrates' Court
20
September
1977,
unreported
113
The
defence
of automatism! is
now
well recognized, it has
been
used in
relation to a whole variety of offences",
and
there
is a
very
substantial literature
concerning the matter", Sir
Owen
Dixon
spoke
of
the
defence
of
automatism as a
path
which was likely to
bear
an increasing
amount
of traffic.
but
this
prediction
can
hardly
be
said to
have
proved
accurate. Although the
defence
tends to
be
thought
of as
appropriate
to serious charges
heard
in superior courts
this is
by
no means so
and
there
are
a
number
of
such
defences
raised in
Magistrates' courts",
The
present
case concerns the
defence
of
automatism raised
in a Magistrate's
court
in Victoria.
Initially the
defence
of automatism
was
to
be
used in relation to the three
charges preferred:
two
offences
of
dangerous driving (Motor
Car
Act 1958
s
8OA(i)
and
one
offence
of
not
reporting an
accident
(Motor
Car
Act 1958
s 8O(1)(e)(i).
However,
in the event, it
served
as a
defence
only in relation to the
charge
of
not
reporting: the
two
charges
of
dangerous driving
were
dismissed as
the civilian informant failed to
appear
at the trial.
The
Facts
The
defendant
(D) stated
that
he
had
attended
afootball
match
on a Saturday
afternoon having
consumed
two
130z cans of
beer
and
bought
one further
can
to
drink at the football ground. After the
game
he
was
driving
home
and
became
involved in an accident
with
acyclist
who
shortly
after
died. After hitting the
cyclist he
stopped
his
car
some
50
yards
further
up
the
road
and
walked
back
to
the scene of
the
accident.
He
remained
at the scene
for
some
45 minutes.
During
this time he was interviewed
by
a
radio
roundsman
who
stated
in
court
that
D
spoke
at times
quite
sensibly
but
at
other
times was incoherent; he then
would
be
muttering at his
shadow
and
throughout the
attempted
interview D
seemed
oblivious of the microphone. At one stage he
indicated
that
D, in effect, said
"I've
soiled
my
pants, look, feel".
The
witness
denied
that
D was
drunk
or
even
under
the influence
of
liquor.
After an
ambulance
removed
the victim,
and
before
the police arrived, a
tow
truck driver said to D
"Go
and
sit in
your
car". This Ddid. He then
drove
off,
according to
the
radio roundsman,
quite
normally for a
few
hundred
yards until
he
disappeared
from view. D
was
followed
by
the
tow
truck
driver
and
it was
his description of
D's
driving that
formed
the basis
of
the
two
charges of
dangerous driving.
Darrived at his home,
parked
his
car
appropriately
and
entered
his house. His
wife
testified that she
saw
adishevelled, foul smelling, incoherent individual
with
rather fixed staring eyes. She could
not
understand
one
word
D was saying.
To continue reading
Request your trial