Justice Minister David Lametti has introduced legislation that will amend the Penal Code to ensure that people who voluntarily fall into a state of extreme intoxication can be held legally responsible for their actions while in that state.
The law was introduced in response to a ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court in May that self-induced extreme intoxication could be used as protection in cases where someone is accused of violence.
“By removing this section of the Penal Code, the court’s decision left a loophole in the law. Bill C-28 fills that gap, Lameti said on Friday. “It does so in a way that is both constitutional and fair.
“It amends the Penal Code so that a person is responsible for the violence he commits in a state of extreme intoxication if he finds himself in that state due to his own criminal negligence.
WATCH Liberals aim to eliminate self-induced extreme intoxication as a remedy
Liberals aim to eliminate self-induced extreme intoxication as a remedy
Justice Minister David Lametti joined Power & Politics on Friday to discuss Bill C-28, which aims to ensure that people who voluntarily become extremely intoxicated can be held legally accountable for their actions. while in this state.
The Ministry of Justice defines extreme intoxication as a rare condition that is almost impossible to obtain through alcohol consumption alone – one that leaves a person without voluntary control or awareness of their actions.
In order to use this protection successfully, lawyers must prove by evidence and expert testimony that a person was in this state of extreme intoxication when he committed the acts with which he is accused.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that heavy intoxication could be used as a remedy. A year later, parliament amended the Penal Code to introduce section 33.1 to prevent the accused from using heavy intoxication as protection for violent crimes. The Supreme Court dropped Article 33.1 last month, saying it violated the Charter of Rights.
Bill C-28 does not simply restore section 33.1. It seeks to invalidate self-induced extreme intoxication as a remedy by moving it into the realm of criminal negligence – in the same way that failing to provide for a child’s life is criminal negligence.
A Justice Department spokesman who spoke in the background said that if legislation became law, courts would have to decide whether a reasonable person should be expected to know that consuming drugs and alcohol in certain quantities could make them not. they know about their actions.
According to the law, if lawyers succeed in convincing the court that a reasonable person must know the effect of the consumption of narcotics in certain quantities, they can prove criminal negligence and the accused can be convicted on the charges he faces.
A recent Supreme Court ruling has prompted the move
The Supreme Court’s decisions in May this year were what prompted Lametti to draft the legislation. One of the decisions involved the case of former Mount Royal University student Matthew Brown, who was accused of burglary and aggravating assault in connection with a 2018 incident.
After eating approximately 2.5 grams of magic mushrooms and drinking about 12 to 14 ounces of vodka and some beer, a naked Brown stormed Janet Hamnet’s home and attacked her with a broomstick, breaking several bones in her hands.
Brown used protection against self-induced extreme intoxication and was acquitted. The Alberta Court of Appeals overturned that decision, finding Brown guilty of aggravated assault. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In its 104-page ruling on Brown, the Supreme Court overturned the Alberta Court of Appeals’ decision and called on parliament to pass legislation to protect victims of violent crime committed by people in a state of extreme intoxication.
Matthew Brown, left, was naked and incensed with magic mushrooms when he stormed Janet Hamnet’s home in Calgary, right, and hit her with a broomstick. (Megan Grant / CBC, Mount Royal University)
The court said that “the protection of victims of violent crime – especially in the light of the equality and interests of the dignity of women and children who are vulnerable to sexual and domestic acts while intoxicated – is an urgent and essential social goal.”
The other two cases on which the Supreme Court ruled at the same time were unanimous decisions in the cases of David Sullivan and Thomas Chan, two cases in Ontario, argued together with similar circumstances. The Supreme Court of Cassation upheld Sullivan’s acquittal and ordered a new trial against Chan.
Lametti said that while this protection can only be used in a few cases, it is important to fill the gap in the law due to disinformation that began circulating after the Supreme Court ruling.
“Being drunk or inflated is not protection against committing criminal acts such as sexual violence,” he said. “This was the law before the decision of the Supreme Court and this remains the law today. And all Canadians need to understand that clearly. “
Protection of vulnerable groups
Minister for Women and Gender Equality Marcy Ian said the government must deal with widespread comments on social media platforms suggesting that rape and other sexual crimes are legal in Canada as long as the perpetrator is intoxicated .
“The extreme intoxication we are talking about is not being drunk, it is not being strong. The Supreme Court has made it clear that drunkenness is not a protection against crimes of violence and sexual assault,” she said.
WATCH: Liberals propose amendment to the Penal Code for heavy intoxication:
Liberals propose amendment to the Penal Code in response to Supreme Court ruling on severe intoxication
Justice Minister David Lametti has announced a proposed bill to “bridge the gap” in protection against extreme intoxication following a ruling by Canada’s Supreme Court.
Ian said women and minorities were already disproportionately vulnerable to acts of violence and sexual violence, and allowing self-induced protection from extreme intoxication to endure could jeopardize their equality and safety.
“We see that indigenous women and girls, racial people and LGBTQ + people are experiencing gender-based violence more than any other segment of our society,” she said.
“This is precisely the reason why we ensure that those who choose to consume drugs or alcohol in a criminal and negligent manner are criminally liable.”
Add Comment