Photo: The Canadian Press
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti rises during the period of questions, Thursday, June 2, 2022 in Ottawa. Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti is expected to submit a bill as early as Friday, which will respond to the Supreme Court’s decision to allow voluntary extreme intoxication as protection against serious crime. THE CANADIAN PRESS / Adrian Wilde
Federal Liberals on Friday introduced a bill aimed at eliminating “self-inflicted extreme intoxication” as a legal remedy for violent crimes after the Supreme Court overturned a similar provision in May.
Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, will add a new language to the Penal Code, which creates criminal liability when a perpetrator of a violent crime is “in a state of negligent self-inflicted extreme intoxication.”
In order to be held responsible for their actions under the update of section 33.1 of the Code, prosecutors will need to establish that they have committed criminal negligence.
The court will have to assess whether a reasonable person in this situation could have foreseen the risk that ingestion of narcotics could “cause severe intoxication and cause the person to harm another person”.
The specific circumstances of the case would have been taken into account in the analysis, such as the substance itself and the amount consumed, the mental state of the person at the time and anything he or she may have done to mitigate such a risk.
“Extreme intoxication” is defined in the bill as intoxication, which makes a person unconscious or unable to consciously control their behavior.
This is not a presumed defense, which means that the test would only be applicable if the accused explicitly raises it.
This has only happened a few times, Lametti said, stressing that protection against “extreme intoxication” is rare.
This would not be the case in most cases involving drugs or alcohol – and “almost never” in situations where only alcohol is consumed.
“It’s not about being really drunk or really being made,” he said, repeating several times: “Being drunk or being made is not protection against committing criminal acts such as sexual assault.”
Marcy Ian, the Liberal Minister for Women and Gender Equality, told reporters that the government is increasingly concerned about online disinformation, suggesting a recent Supreme Court ruling means that drunkenness could be a defense against sexual violence.
She cites social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one that suggests that “rape is now legal if you are intoxicated.”
Lametti said one of the reasons for closing the gap in the law so quickly is to deal with some of the growing fear and confusion over the decision.
“You don’t want anyone to think, ‘Oh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever I want,'” he joked.
In its unanimous decision in May, the Supreme Court made it clear that drunkenness will never drive someone crazy for a violent crime.
But Judge Nicholas Cassirer wrote in the ruling that condemning someone for behaving in a state of automatism or when he is too intoxicated to control himself violates the principles of fundamental justice.
According to the previous version of the Penal Code, the court found that a person could be convicted without the prosecution proving that he acted voluntarily or that he intended to commit a crime? – although “guilty action” and “guilty mind” usually have to be present in order for someone to be held criminally responsible.
On this basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after voluntary drug use and ordered a new trial in a third similar case.
It is assumed that Parliament can adopt new legislation to update the language of the Penal Code in such a way that “extremely intoxicated” people can still be held accountable for their violent crimes.
Some groups expressed concern about the court’s ruling, with Kerry Ann Frock of the National Women’s Association and the law’s steering committee calling for action to protect women and children, often victims of these crimes.
Lametti’s office responded with what he called “lightning speed”, consulting with stakeholders involved in the court and members of parliament to come up with a solution that could receive widespread support.
Asked if he expects the bill to be passed unanimously before the House of Commons and the Senate rise next week for summer vacation, Lametti said he was optimistic.
“There is a point of agreement here and I hope we can move forward.
Rappor Garrison, a critic of the NDP’s justice, said in a statement that the NDP would push for the bill to be passed quickly.
Conservatives say they are still reviewing the law.
The section, which the court removed, was added by Jean Chrétien’s liberal government in 1995 in response to a 1994 Supreme Court ruling acquitting the man of sexual assault because he was drunk at the time of the crime.
Add Comment