Links to the Breadcrumb trail
- News
- Canadian politics
- Canada
The Supreme Court on Friday said a law passed by parliament in 1995 banning protection was unconstitutional.
Author of the article:
Publication date:
May 13, 2022 • 22 minutes ago • 2 minutes read • 109 comments The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that self-induced extreme intoxication is a valid protection in cases of violent crime. Photo by Sean Kilpatrick / The Canadian Press / File
Content of the article
Canada’s Supreme Court ruled Friday that defendants accused of violent crimes such as murder and sexual assault could use self-induced extreme intoxication as protection by repealing a federal law backed by women’s advocacy groups.
Advertising 2
This ad is not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The Supreme Court said a law passed by parliament in 1995 banning defense was unconstitutional and violated the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“Its impact on the principles of fundamental justice is disproportionate to its overarching social benefits. Therefore, it must be declared unconstitutional and without force or effect, “said Judge Nicholas Cassirer, writing unanimously in writing to the Supreme Court.
Cassirer said using the section of the Penal Code violates the Charter, as a person’s decision to become intoxicated does not mean that he intended to commit a violent crime.
The charter was also violated, as the accused could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that the person wanted or intended to commit the act.
Advertising 3
This ad is not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The question was whether defendants accused of a violent crime in criminal court could raise extreme intoxication – known as “automatism without mental disorder” – as a defense.
In this way, defendants can claim that their actions were unintentional as a result of drug or alcohol use and, as a result, they cannot be held criminally liable for their actions.
The court said that the law in Canada is that intoxication without automatism is not a protection for the type of violent crime in question.
Canadian courts are divided on the issue, while women’s advocacy groups have said the law is necessary to protect women and children because they are disproportionately affected by violence.
Four out of five victims of intimate partner violence are women, and women were five times more likely to be sexually abused in 2019, according to the Canadian government.
Advertising 4
This ad is not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
The issue was brought before the Supreme Court last fall, when judges heard arguments about the constitutionality of the statute, as it concerned three separate cases. In a ruling Friday, the court said a case could be ordered in one case and an acquittal in another.
The third case involved a Calgary man, David Sullivan, who attempted suicide on December 1, 2013, by taking a prescription drug known to cause psychosis.
In a psychotic state, he stabbed his mother, whom he considered an alien. Sullivan was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after a judge said he could not use protection against extreme intoxication.
However, the Court of Appeals found the law on extreme intoxication unconstitutional and acquitted Sullivan on both charges. Prosecutors appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which upheld his acquittal in Friday’s ruling.
Advertising 5
This ad is not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
Content of the article
Cassirer wrote that there are other ways in which Parliament can achieve its goals of tackling extreme violence while intoxicated.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of protection from extreme intoxication by a suspect accused of sexually abusing a woman in a wheelchair while drunk.
In response to the Supreme Court ruling, the Canadian parliament passed a law banning defendants from using heavy intoxication as protection in violent crimes. This law was adopted in 1995.
(Report and writing by Brendan O’Brien in Chicago. Edited by Jane Merriman and Barbara Lewis)
With additional reports from The Canadian Press
Share this article on your social network
Advertising
This ad is not yet loaded, but your article continues below.
NP Published
Sign up to receive daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.
By clicking the register button, you agree to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link at the bottom of our emails. Postmedia Network Inc. | 365 Bloor Street East, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3L4 | 416-383-2300
Thank you for registering!
Email is welcome. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of NP Posted will be in your inbox soon.
There was a problem registering with you. Please, try again
Comments
Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civic discussion forum and encourages all readers to share their views on our articles. It can take up to an hour to moderate comments before they appear on the site. Please keep your comments up to date and respectful. We have enabled email notifications – you will now receive an email if you receive a response to your comment, there is an update on the thread for comments you follow, or if a user you follow comments on a comment. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.
Add Comment