Divisional Court Cases
| Published date | 01 October 1962 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002201836202600404 |
| Date | 01 October 1962 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Divisional Court Cases
DANGEROUS DRIVING AND AUTOMATISM
Watmore v. Jenkins
THE above case (1962 3 W.L.R. 463) is of some interest
both for its unusual facts and because it dealt with asubject,
automatism,
the
legal principles applicable to which have only
been explored by
the
Courts within
the
last few years.
The
defendant was charged before
the
Wallington,
Surrey, justices on three informations: (1)
that
he drove a
motor vehicle on certain roads whilst unfit to do so through
drugs contrary to s. 6 of the Road Traffic Act 1960; (2)
that
he drove on those roads in a manner dangerous to
the
public
contrary to s. 2(1) of
the
above Act; (3)
that
contrary to s. 3(1)
of the Act he drove without due care and attention. By consent
all three informations were heard together.
The
defendant
was acquitted and
the
prosecutor appealed by case stated.
The
justices found
the
following facts:
that
the
defendant
who was a chartered accountant aged 46 had driven for
the
past 20 years without aconviction, covering an average of
15,000 miles each year.
For
some years
the
defendant
had
suffered from diabetes.
Under
the
direction of his doctor
and
aconsultant physician he had injected himself with insulin.
In
February 1961 he had had a severe attack of jaundice which
had necessitated his admission to hospital. Medical evidence
showed
that
jaundice damages
the
liver and results in over-
production of hydro-cortezone, asubstance inimical to
insulin.
To
combat this
the
defendant's prescribed dosage of
insulin had been increased. An excess of insulin will cause a
hypoglycaemic episode or coma usually presaged by sweating
due
to the liver discharging glycogen into the blood stream.
On
the
zrst
May 1961
the
defendant was told that he could
return to his normal dosage of insulin.
The
occasion which gave rise to these proceedings was the
evening of
the
19th June 1961 when, as the justices found,
the
defendant had alighter day's work
than
usual and consumed
no more
than
anormal amount of food. At about 6.45 p.m, he
267
To continue reading
Request your trial