EDWARDS v MACRAE [1991] NSWCA 88

EDWARDS v MACRAE [1991] NSWCA 88

Automatism (in the sense of conduct not accompanied by will) can, in law, be a possible answer to a charge under s4E(1G) of the Motor Traffic Act 1909; Parliament did not use language making voluntariness irrelevant, so the prosecution must prove the act of driving was voluntary.

Parties
Appellant: Edwards; Respondent: Macrae
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 July 1991
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Stated Case From Supreme Court Judge (gyles Aj) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; orders of Gyles AJ set aside
Legal Topics
Automatism, Voluntariness in Statutory Offences, Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol, Strict Liability Offences
Criminal Law Traffic Law Automatism Voluntariness in Statutory Offences Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol Strict Liability Offences

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 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edwards

Appellant

Macrae

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Stated Case From Supreme Court Judge (gyles Aj) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether automatism is a possible answer to a charge under s4E(1G) of the Motor Traffic Act 1909 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether, on the true construction of s4E(1G), a person may be convicted regardless of whether their act of driving was voluntary

Ratio Decidendi

Automatism (in the sense of conduct not accompanied by will) can, in law, be a possible answer to a charge under s4E(1G) of the Motor Traffic Act 1909; Parliament did not use language making voluntariness irrelevant, so the prosecution must prove the act of driving was voluntary.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; orders of Gyles AJ set aside

Orders

  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs of proceedings before Gyles AJ
  • No order as to costs of appeal