The appellant appealed his convictions for criminal negligence causing death, criminal negligence causing bodily harm, and aggravated dangerous driving.
He argued that the trial judge erred in applying the modified objective test by failing to account for his state of panic after being chased by assailants, and by improperly using the automatism standard to assess mens rea.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the trial judge correctly applied the modified objective test.
The court held that a reasonable person in the appellant's circumstances would have foreseen the risk, as the imminent peril had passed, and the trial judge did not err in her consideration of the incapacity defence.
