Finegan v Heywood
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 21 March 2000 |
| Date | 21 March 2000 |
| Docket Number | No 53 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICIARY
Before the Lord Justice-General (Lord Rodger of Earlsferry), Lord Sutherland and Lord Cameron of Lochbroom
Scots law - road traffic - drunk driving - sleep-walking no defence in circumstances of case
Where a person whose conscious mind was not controlling his actions because of parasomnia drove a car while the proportion of alcohol in his breath exceeded the legal limit, the defence of automatism was not available to him if he knew that previous incidents of such sleep walking had been preceded by his consuming alcohol.
The High Court of Justiciary, sitting as the Court of Criminal Appeal, so held, refusing an appeal by Mr Graham Finegan against his conviction under section 5(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 upon a complaint brought by Mr Barry Heywood, Procurator Fiscal, Dundee.
Mr Chris Shead for the appellant; Mr Duncan Menzies, QC, for the Crown.
THE LORD JUSTICE -GENERAL, delivering the opinion of the court, said that the appellant had argued for acquittal on the ground of non-insane automatism (Bratty v Attorney-General for Northern IrelandELR((1963) AC 386, 409); R v Tolson ((1889) 23 QB 168, 187); History of the Criminal Law of England (volume 2 (1883) p100) and that once it was proved that he been in a state of parasomnia at the relevant time, there was no need to inquire further into the antecedents of his condition because the only proper conclusion was that he should be acquitted.
There was no reason in principle why in the case of parasomnia the court should necessarily disregard the surrounding circumstances and, in particular, any circumstances which explained why the accused had been in that state.
The appellant had driven the car while his conscious mind had not been controlling his actions. If those had been the only relevant facts he could not properly have been held criminally responsible.
However, alcohol had induced the parasomniac state. He had been aware that at least three of his recent experiences of the condition had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
A Long Motor Run on a Dark Night: Reconstructing HM Advocate v Ritchie
...relevant to criminal law principles of responsibility. The High Court in Scotland had to consider this issue in Finegan v Heywood41412000 JC 444. The Opinion of the Court was delivered by Lord Justice General Rodger. where the accused was charged with a number of road traffic offences inclu......