Key Facts
- •Benjamin Norman was convicted of causing death by careless driving while over the drug limit (Cannabis).
- •The collision involved Norman's van and an articulated lorry, resulting in the death of his passenger.
- •Norman's defense was that he suffered an epileptic fit, which was supported by a post-collision diagnosis of epilepsy.
- •The prosecution argued that cannabis use caused Norman's drowsiness and subsequent loss of control.
- •Expert evidence was presented on the effects of cannabis and epilepsy, but experts were not asked to opine on the more likely cause of the collision.
- •Norman's blood sample showed a high level of cannabis, exceeding the legal limit.
Legal Principles
Causing death by careless driving while exceeding the specified drug limit is a strict liability offense; it's not necessary to prove the drugs directly caused the careless driving.
Section 3A(1)(ba) of the Road Traffic Act 1988
In an insanity defense, the burden is on the defendant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the actions were caused by a disease of the mind.
Common law principle on insanity defense
Experts can give opinions on the 'ultimate issue' in a case (the central question for the jury) but only if it is within their area of expertise and does not usurp the jury's function.
R v Stockwell (1993) 97 Cr App R 260; R v Constantini [2005] EWCA Crim 821
Outcomes
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
The trial judge's approach was reasonable; experts were not asked to opine on the ultimate issue (the cause of the collision) as it would have been speculative and outside their expertise. The jury's verdict was not perverse or unsafe.