Sleep disorder

Detectives were initially sceptical when Thomas claimed he had been asleep.

But scientists specialising in sleep disorders conducted a series of tests and agreed his behaviour was consistent with the "legal concept of automatism".

The prosecution said: "In other words, at the time of the killing the defendant was asleep and his mind had no control over what his body was doing."

Prosecutor Paul Thomas told the court: "The defendant accepts that he caused the death of his wife, but the prosecution does not seek a verdict of guilty to murder or manslaughter. "Instead, very unusually, we seek what is called a special verdict, a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity."

The court was told that the Thomases were a "happy, devoted couple" who were due to celebrate their 40th wedding anniversary, and that Thomas had suffered from sleep disorders for 50 years, said a report in the Times.

The jury heard that in law there were two types of automatism: Insane automatism and non-insane automatism.

The prosecutor is arguing for the former, saying: "This was a case of insane automatism because the sleeping disorder the defendant had suffered from since childhood was 'part of him' and not something that could be cured."

But Mr Thomas' defence team claims he was affected by "non-insane automatism" brought on by the stress of the youths in the carpark.

The case continues.

This article was first published in The New Paper.