The appellant appealed convictions for dangerous driving and failing to stop for police.
At trial, the defence argued non-insane automatism and challenged the admissibility of roadside utterances on the basis that the accused lacked an operating mind due to a severe panic attack.
The trial judge admitted the utterances after a voir dire, noting the absence of medical or psychiatric evidence, and later relied on those statements in rejecting the automatism defence and convicting the accused.
On appeal, the court held that the trial judge should have granted an adjournment to permit a forensic psychiatrist to testify on the voir dire regarding the accused’s mental state.
The appellate court found that such evidence might have raised a reasonable doubt about voluntariness and potentially affected the outcome of the trial.
