The requirement that driving be 'conscious and voluntary' for dangerous driving offences is not limited to a binary question of whether the accused was awake or asleep. Where expert evidence establishes that a condition such as severe sleep apnoea may have diminished the accused's consciousness to the point where the brain was incapable of assimilating or responding to visual stimuli — even though the accused appeared physically awake — the jury must be directed on that more nuanced possibility. A direction framed solely in terms of awake versus asleep constitutes a misdirection on the central issue.
The full text is available to signed-in members.