Mr Mulholland (the Lord Advocate) said: “When you put all that evidence together, it’s quite clear and I have no doubt that you cannot establish, cannot prove, that Mr Clarke knew that he was unfit to drive that day as a result of an ongoing medical condition. If you can’t prove that, then you cannot prove criminal intention.”
‘Unfit to drive that day?” Really? This is a complete nonsense and the Lord Advocate must surely know it. Mr Clarke knew that his collapses were unpredictable, almost random. Therefore to say you cannot prove that Clarke “knew he was unfit to drive that day” is absolutely meaningless. Logic says that his liability to collapse at the wheel was unpredictable. Clarke must have known that he was liable to collapse at the wheel at any time. Clarke KNEW it was not predictable (it had happened before, perhaps many more times than he has admitted). Therefore, he was as liable to collapse at the wheel that day as he was at any other day. The risk was there, yet it was ignored by Clarke (and seemingly by the Lord Advocate).
Despite all this Clarke continued to drive. Surely this made him culpable? Surely the Lord Advocate can see the logic of this? Clarke KNEW he was unfit to drive that day simply because he knew he was liable to suffer one of his random blackouts. A blackout was as likely to occur on that particular day as on any other day. Therefore, he was unfit to drive. The fact that he drove, knowing there was a chance of having a blackout and losing control of the vehicle he was driving makes him culpable. QED?