Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v Hardman

The Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) appealed to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal of New South Wales, which had allowed an appeal by Mr. Hardman against his conviction for the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. The central dispute concerned the proper interpretation and application of the defence of automatism in the context of dangerous driving.

The High Court was required to determine whether the defence of automatism, which negates criminal responsibility by reason of an involuntary act, was available to an accused charged with dangerous driving occasioning death under section 52A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the mental state required for dangerous driving was such that it was incompatible with the defence of automatism, and if so, what the consequences of that incompatibility were for the availability of the defence.

The majority of the High Court, comprising Gleeson CJ and Heydon J, held that the defence of automatism was not available in relation to the offence of dangerous driving occasioning death. Their Honours reasoned that the offence requires proof of a particular state of mind, namely that the driving was dangerous, which inherently involves a degree of conscious control and awareness on the part of the driver. Automatism, by its nature, signifies a complete lack of conscious control. Therefore, an act performed in a state of automatism could not, as a matter of law, be considered "dangerous driving" as defined by the statute. The court distinguished this from other offences where the voluntariness of the act is a prerequisite, but the specific mental element does not preclude the defence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal, and reinstated Mr. Hardman's conviction.