Police V Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26

Police V Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26

The expert evidence did not provide a sufficient factual foundation to raise or establish a reasonable possibility that the accused was sleep driving or acting involuntarily on either date. For 16 October 2009 there was no evidence that the accused had gone back to sleep before driving, the driving distance was substantial, and her presentation to police was inconsistent with sleep driving. For 17 October 2009, the accused had taken double her prescribed Stilnox dose, making any intoxication self-induced for basic-intent driving offences, and the evidence showed impairment or intoxication rather than total destruction of voluntary control. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 November 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prosecution for Driving Offences / Judgment on Guilt After Hearing
Outcome
The accused was convicted.
Legal Topics
['driving Offences' 'sane Automatism' 'sleep Driving' 'zolpidem (stilnox) Intoxication' 'self Induced Intoxication' 'expert Evidence']
['criminal Law' 'traffic Law' 'evidence'] ['driving Offences' 'sane Automatism' 'sleep Driving' 'zolpidem (stilnox) Intoxication' 'self Induced Intoxication' 'expert Evidence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prosecution for Driving Offences / Judgment on Guilt After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the accused's driving on 16 October 2009 was involuntary because of sane automatism or sleep driving caused by Stilnox." "Whether the accused's driving on 17 October 2009 was involuntary because of involuntary intoxication leading to non-insane automatism." 'Whether the expert report of Dr Yolande Lucire provided an admissible and sufficient evidential foundation for automatism.' 'Whether taking two Stilnox tablets instead of the prescribed one tablet amounted to self-induced intoxication for offences of basic intent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The expert evidence did not provide a sufficient factual foundation to raise or establish a reasonable possibility that the accused was sleep driving or acting involuntarily on either date. For 16 October 2009 there was no evidence that the accused had gone back to sleep before driving, the driving distance was substantial, and her presentation to police was inconsistent with sleep driving. For 17 October 2009, the accused had taken double her prescribed Stilnox dose, making any intoxication self-induced for basic-intent driving offences, and the evidence showed impairment or intoxication rather than total destruction of voluntary control. The prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt...

Court Disposition

The accused was convicted.

Orders

  • ['The accused is convicted.']