Hill v Baxter
Encyclopedia
The case of Hill v Baxter concerns the issue of automatism
in English law. It sets out reasonably clear guidelines as to when the defence will apply, and when it will not.
. He could not remember anything between a very early point of the journey and immediately after the accident. It was suggested (and accepted at first instance) that he was not conscious of what he was doing, and "that he was not capable of forming any intention as to his manner of driving." The reason for this is because he succumbed to an unknown illness, and so was not able to control his actions.
was an offence of strict liability, a denial of the requisite mens rea
would not be enough to exculpate him. He was instead required to rely on the defence of automatism. Lord Goddard CJ
ruled that there would be some situations where "the driver would be in such a state of unconsciousness that he could not be said to be driving." This is in effect a denial of actus reus
. However, Lord Goddard found on the facts (which he was probably not legally entitled to do) that the accused had simply fallen asleep. As this was something he had substantial control over, being presumed to have been aware that he was tired, he found that he was reckless in continuing to drive, he then quoted Humphreys J in Kay v Butterworth (1945) and resurrected the now famous and hypothetical situation of a swarm of bees attacking the driver, in which case the driver would not have been held liable.
Pearson J agreed on all relevant points of law, but disagreed as to why he should not be convicted. He held that as the defendant had driven a substantial distance without incident, he was clearly "driving with skill", and therefore must have been driving.
The judge in this case held that only a voluntary act or omission can qualify as an actus reus
.
Automatism (law)
-Definition:Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability or excuse...
in English law. It sets out reasonably clear guidelines as to when the defence will apply, and when it will not.
Facts
In this case, a man succeeded in driving a substantial distance before having an accident. He was charged with dangerous drivingDangerous driving
Dangerous driving is a statutory offence in England and Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is also a term of art used in the definition of the offence of causing death by dangerous driving...
. He could not remember anything between a very early point of the journey and immediately after the accident. It was suggested (and accepted at first instance) that he was not conscious of what he was doing, and "that he was not capable of forming any intention as to his manner of driving." The reason for this is because he succumbed to an unknown illness, and so was not able to control his actions.
Automatism
As dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act 1930Road Traffic Act 1930
The Road Traffic Act 1930 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom introduced by the then Minister of Transport Herbert Morrison following the 1929 election which resulted in a hung parliament in which the Labour party won the most seats for the first time and Ramsay MacDonald became...
was an offence of strict liability, a denial of the requisite mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
would not be enough to exculpate him. He was instead required to rely on the defence of automatism. Lord Goddard CJ
Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard
Rayner Goddard, Baron Goddard was Lord Chief Justice of England from 1946 to 1958 and known for his strict sentencing and conservative views. He was nicknamed the 'Tiger' and "Justice-in-a-jiffy" for his no-nonsense manner...
ruled that there would be some situations where "the driver would be in such a state of unconsciousness that he could not be said to be driving." This is in effect a denial of actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
. However, Lord Goddard found on the facts (which he was probably not legally entitled to do) that the accused had simply fallen asleep. As this was something he had substantial control over, being presumed to have been aware that he was tired, he found that he was reckless in continuing to drive, he then quoted Humphreys J in Kay v Butterworth (1945) and resurrected the now famous and hypothetical situation of a swarm of bees attacking the driver, in which case the driver would not have been held liable.
Pearson J agreed on all relevant points of law, but disagreed as to why he should not be convicted. He held that as the defendant had driven a substantial distance without incident, he was clearly "driving with skill", and therefore must have been driving.
Outcome
The prosecution's appeal was allowed, and the case was referred back to the trial judge. The defendant was, however, eventually found guilty.The judge in this case held that only a voluntary act or omission can qualify as an actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
.