The observation in R v Scott that grossly negligent driving produced by lack of sleep is not much different from that induced by alcohol was case-specific and does not establish a general proposition equating sleep-deprived driving with intoxicated driving for sentencing purposes. In culpable driving cases involving a driver falling asleep, the culpable conduct is the conscious driving up to the point of falling asleep, not the unconscious driving afterwards, and whether the driver had actual or merely constructive knowledge of the risk of falling asleep is relevant to the assessment of culpability on the scale.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.