The [name withheld] direction — that the fact a person does not later remember what they did does not necessarily indicate their will did not go with what they did — is confined to cases of intoxication and should not be applied where the defence is dissociation or somnambulism. Where the only causes of amnesia other than dissociation (intoxication and psychosis) have been excluded on the evidence, a direction that amnesia does not necessarily indicate involuntary conduct is a misdirection. Similarly, the observations of [name withheld] in [name withheld] on the distinction between volition and intention are directed to intoxication cases and are not readily adaptable to dissociation or somnambulism.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.