Police V Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION: Police V Pritchard [2010] NSWLC 26

JURISDICTION: Criminal

PARTIES: Police Pritchard

FILE NUMBER:

PLACE OF HEARING: Camden Local Court

DATE OF DECISION: 11/24/2010

MAGISTRATE: Magistrate Clisdell

CATCHWORDS: Driving offences - defence of sane automatism- sleep driving caused by Stilnox - expert's report and conclusions not supported by facts - accused self-medicating by exceeding prescription dose - rebuttal of defence where prosecution rely on facts and call no expert evidence in reply - acceptance or rejection of expert's report

Evidence Act 1995, s 136 LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, ss 428A, 428D Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999, ss 12(1)(a), 42(2)

CASES CITED:

TEXTS CITED:

REPRESENTATION: Sgt C Parnell Mr B Levet instructed by Marsdens

ORDERS:

- 13 -

JUDGMENT 1 Pandora Pritchard was charged with driving offences that occurred on 16 and 17 October 2009. The first charge on 16 October 2009 was for failing to properly control her motor vehicle (Road Rules r 297(1)) and the second set of charges were for driving in a manner dangerous to the public (s 42(2) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 and for driving under the influence of a drug (s 12(1)(a) Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999.

2 There was no issue that on each occasion the driving of the accused would constitute the offences alleged but for a defence of sane automatism. The facts alleged by the prosecution were not in dispute and the prosecution case was a "hand up brief".

3 I have already found the accused guilty of driving on 16 October 2009 without proper control of her vehicle. In doing so I have rejected the defence of sane automatism. I will give brief reasons to supplement the ex tempore reasons given on 11 October 2010 following the hearing.