The Supreme Court of Canada ruled defendants can use self-induced extreme intoxication in their defence in circumstances of murder and sexual assault. .On Friday, the court said its decision to strike down a federal law that prohibited the defence passed by Parliament in 1985 was unconstitutional and violates Canada's Charter of rights. .In December 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruled that s.33.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC, 1985 c C-46, which prohibits self-induced intoxication to the point of automatism to be used as a defence in cases involving murder, assault or other violent crimes, was unconstitutional..The ruling pertained to a jointly-heard case involving two accused — Thomas Chan and David Sullivan — who both fell into a psychotic episode after consuming a heavy amount of drugs. During their psychotic episode, they injured and, in Mr. Chan's case, killed members of their family. .According to TheCourt.ca, it was expected the ruling would have "significant effects on the status of the intoxication defence in Canadian criminal law for offences such as murder and assault.".Non-mental disorder automatism — defined as a state in which a person acts in an involuntary manner caused by factors such as a blow to the head or sneezing — negates criminal responsibility. .The decision comes after it was questioned whether a defendant accused of a violent crime could claim extreme intoxication known as non-mental disorder automatism as a defence.
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled defendants can use self-induced extreme intoxication in their defence in circumstances of murder and sexual assault. .On Friday, the court said its decision to strike down a federal law that prohibited the defence passed by Parliament in 1985 was unconstitutional and violates Canada's Charter of rights. .In December 2020, the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruled that s.33.1 of the Criminal Code, RSC, 1985 c C-46, which prohibits self-induced intoxication to the point of automatism to be used as a defence in cases involving murder, assault or other violent crimes, was unconstitutional..The ruling pertained to a jointly-heard case involving two accused — Thomas Chan and David Sullivan — who both fell into a psychotic episode after consuming a heavy amount of drugs. During their psychotic episode, they injured and, in Mr. Chan's case, killed members of their family. .According to TheCourt.ca, it was expected the ruling would have "significant effects on the status of the intoxication defence in Canadian criminal law for offences such as murder and assault.".Non-mental disorder automatism — defined as a state in which a person acts in an involuntary manner caused by factors such as a blow to the head or sneezing — negates criminal responsibility. .The decision comes after it was questioned whether a defendant accused of a violent crime could claim extreme intoxication known as non-mental disorder automatism as a defence.
