No news story as of yet, I will post when one becomes available. But here's the decision itself:
https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/19389/index.do
Trying to keep it pretty basic: in law, the Crown has to prove two things, the actus reus (the act), and the mens rea (the guilty mind). So if you do something by accident, without meaning to, it is not a crime.
The question long ago came up about intoxication - can you be so drunk that you no longer are in control of your actions, and therefore no longer have the requisite mens rea? Back in the 90s the Supreme Court said yes. In response Parliament passed section 33.1 - that self-induced intoxication can not be a defence to crimes of violence.
Today the court struck down s. 33.1, saying it violated the Charter of Rights. It suggested Parliament could have dealt with this in other ways. Most tellingly to me is that the Court did not suspend it's ruling for a period of time to allow Parliament to fix the problem - it comes into effect today.
This, my friends, is bullshit.
The court has no idea what kinds of hell this will cause. I dare say most of my files are done under the influence of intoxicants. A significant minority under heavy intoxication. To just waive a hand and say "well then you're not guilty - go free and sin no more" is going to be hell.
But I'm posting a general thread, and not just in the Canada redux - what does the rest of the world think? To the Languish law-talkers - how does your jurisdiction deal with the defence of intoxication?
So if I ever murder someone in Canada chug a bottle of vodka.
Gotcha.
I always found "intoxication is not a defense" argument to be pragmatic, not logically consistent. Obviously there is a problem where the person can do something bad because they're drunk, and not suffer consequences because they're drunk. As a public policy that would be disastrous regardless of intellectual consistency.
You can make an argument that a reasonable person knowingly put themselves into a state where they become unreasonable when they get drunk, but I don't think it's particularly strong. It makes even less sense when the intoxication is less foreseeable, such when you have a bad reaction to a new medication, or when you're taking some psychotropic medication that changes your personality. At the end of the day, most people who do something bad when intoxicated don't have it on their mind to do it when they're sober, so that implies lack of mens rea regardless of public policy implications.
Here's a news story.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/supreme-court-calgary-case-assault-mushrooms-extreme-intoxication-brown-1.6451012
Quote from: DGuller on May 13, 2022, 01:32:50 PMI always found "intoxication is not a defense" argument to be pragmatic, not logically consistent. Obviously there is a problem where the person can do something bad because they're drunk, and not suffer consequences because they're drunk. As a public policy that would be disastrous regardless of intellectual consistency.
You can make an argument that a reasonable person knowingly put themselves into a state where they become unreasonable when they get drunk, but I don't think it's particularly strong. It makes even less sense when the intoxication is less foreseeable, such when you have a bad reaction to a new medication, or when you're taking some psychotropic medication that changes your personality. At the end of the day, most people who do something bad when intoxicated don't have it on their mind to do it when they're sober, so that implies lack of mens rea regardless of public policy implications.
I think you have it. The court's point is very logical - if someone does something while highly intoxicated, and would never do such a thing while sober, certainly has an altered consciousness.
But it's the public policy side of it - these people cause very, very real victims.
I had a case last year. Guy was staying in an Air BnB. He was drinking, smoking some pot, and mixing in some prescription pills (not prescribed to him though). Somehow he got locked out of his AirBnB, didn't know which one was his, so started randomly trying doors. He forced his way into two separate condo units where he proceeded to assault the occupants.
Is it really good public policy to say "oh well, you were just highly intoxicated. Sorry victims, nothing we can do here"?
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 12:31:34 PMBut I'm posting a general thread, and not just in the Canada redux - what does the rest of the world think? To the Languish law-talkers - how does your jurisdiction deal with the defence of intoxication?
From the CPS - may be different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, not sure - there's a Q&A which I actually thought was quite interesting:
QuoteGeneral Principle
Intoxication, whether voluntary or involuntary, is not a defence per se. However, where a person is intoxicated through drink or drugs and commits a crime, the level of intoxication may be such as to prevent that person from forming the necessary mens rea of the crime.
[...]
Intoxication: Specific and Basic Intent
Voluntary intoxication is never a defence to a crime of basic intent.
However, where the defendant has voluntarily put himself in the position of being intoxicated to the extent that he is incapable of forming the mental element of the offence, this will amount to a defence in respect of a crime of specific intent.
This principle is subject to the caveat that a drunken intent is still an intent: R v Sheehan and Moore (1975) 60 Cr App R 308.
NB: A person who deliberately makes himself intoxicated in order to give himself sufficient courage to commit an offence cannot raise a defence based on such intoxication, even to a crime of specific intent: AG for Northern Ireland v Gallagher [1963] AC 349.- (The 'Dutch courage rule').
The distinction between crimes of specific intent and crimes of basic intent was drawn in DPP v Beard [1920] AC 479 and affirmed in DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 443 HL. The terms 'basic intent' and 'specific intent' have since been defined in different ways.
Crimes of specific intent have sometimes been stated to include crimes where the offence can only be committed intentionally i.e. where recklessness will not suffice (e.g. murder): R v Caldwell [1982] AC 341 HL.
Another definition often used is where the offence requires an ulterior intent i.e. one which requires proof of an intent which goes beyond the prohibited act (e.g. criminal damage with intent to endanger life): R v Heard [2007] 3 WLR 475.
Crimes of specific intent have been held to include:
Murder
S.18 wounding/GBH with intent
Arson/criminal damage with intent to endanger life
Crimes of basic intent have been held to include:
Common assault
S.47 assault occasioning actual bodily harm
Manslaughter
Assault on a police officer in the execution of his duty
S.20 wounding/GBH
Taking a conveyance without the owner's authority
Arson/criminal damage
Arson/criminal damage being reckless as to whether life would be endangered
Sexual assault (notwithstanding the fact that "intentional" touching of the complainant by the defendant is an essential element of the offence)
Also I found it interesting that if you have a mistaken belief that you're under attack, you can't rely on that mistaken belief as self-defence if it was induced by voluntary intoxication (presumably with a hallucinogen) and that applies to specific or basic intent crimes. Which makes sense.
I'm no lawyer, but would a reasonable approach be to establish a specific law about engaging in criminal behaviour while under voluntarily under the effect of intoxicants?
Quote from: Jacob on May 13, 2022, 01:58:25 PMI'm no lawyer, but would a reasonable approach be to establish a specific law about engaging in criminal behaviour while under voluntarily under the effect of intoxicants?
From BBoy's post I think that's exactly what happened - and it got struck down.
Quote from: Sheilbh on May 13, 2022, 01:57:33 PMFrom the CPS - may be different in Scotland and Northern Ireland, not sure - there's a Q&A which I actually thought was quite interesting:
That all matches what Canadian law was - intoxication could form a defence to specific intent offences, but not general intent.
For the non-lawyers out there, most criminal laws are ones of general intent. You're assumed to expect the reasonable consequences of your actions. If you punch someone, hard but not that hard, you can expect them to get hurt. The prosecution doesn't need to prove you intended to hurt anyone.
But an offence like Murder is one of specific intent. Here the prosecution must prove you meant to kill someone. If we can't prove that intent we're left with manslaughter, which is a general intent offence.
Intoxication was always enough to negative specific intent, but not general intent.
From the Court's headnote
QuoteThis is not a drunkenness case. B consumed a drug which, taken in combination with alcohol, provoked psychotic, delusional and involuntary conduct. Criminal liability for violent conduct produced by alcohol alone, short of the psychotic state akin to automatism experienced by B, is not in issue.
Does this negate all charges against drunk driving fatalities?
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2022, 03:15:47 PMDoes this negate all charges against drunk driving fatalities?
Apparently not, as per CC this doesn't apply to alcohol at all (except when combined with other substances that then provoke an involuntary psychotic reaction).
I think this raises the related point of crimes and insanity. I watch a little bit of courtroom youtube and I think the case could be made that most people who commit serious crimes are some kind of psycho.
Quote from: merithyn on May 13, 2022, 03:15:47 PMDoes this negate all charges against drunk driving fatalities?
Well the court asserts that "there is good reason to believe Parliament understood that alcohol alone is
unlikely to bring about the delusional state akin to automatism it sought to regulate" (emphasis added). But it's a factual, not legal, distinction.
I've only skimmed the decision but haven't seen anything that explicitly limits it to combinations of alcohol and drugs.
And besides - from experience if you're the kind of person who gets so intoxicated you're committing crimes you almost certainly have more than one substance onboard.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 03:19:59 PMI think this raises the related point of crimes and insanity. I watch a little bit of courtroom youtube and I think the case could be made that most people who commit serious crimes are some kind of psycho.
A couple of years ago they started up a "mental health court" here in Edmonton. And there was a big debate over exactly who qualifies to get into mental health court because yeah - very few people just calmly and rationally decide to turn to a life of crime. And it's almost definitional, as some of the DSM diagnosis criteria require that the person have negative social interactions or the like.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:30:09 PMAnd besides - from experience if you're the kind of person who gets so intoxicated you're committing crimes you almost certainly have more than one substance onboard.
Just for the simple joy of disagreeing I will say that's not my experience. Lots of folks around here throw back the hootch but are otherwise straightedge.
edit: takes backs. Didn't register the part about committing crimes.
I was doing a bunch of impaired by drug files several years ago. You'd have a drug expert do a series of evaluations, then they'd make a conclusion about what category of drugs the person was on (stimulants, CNS depresssants, etc). Then they'd get a blood test to confirm.
What was difficult was that people were NEVER on just one drug...
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:30:09 PMQuote from: merithyn on May 13, 2022, 03:15:47 PMDoes this negate all charges against drunk driving fatalities?
Well the court asserts that "there is good reason to believe Parliament understood that alcohol alone is unlikely to bring about the delusional state akin to automatism it sought to regulate" (emphasis added). But it's a factual, not legal, distinction.
I've only skimmed the decision but haven't seen anything that explicitly limits it to combinations of alcohol and drugs.
And besides - from experience if you're the kind of person who gets so intoxicated you're committing crimes you almost certainly have more than one substance onboard.
Please refer to the bit in the headnote I quoted where the Court explicitly says just that.
I would help BB, if you read the case rather than inferring what the Court said from media reports.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 13, 2022, 04:05:58 PMI would help BB, if you read the case rather than inferring what the Court said from media reports.
For fuck sakes CC.
It's as if you missed the part where I linked directly to the case itself.
or the other part where I directly quoted the case itself.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:35:09 PMA couple of years ago they started up a "mental health court" here in Edmonton. And there was a big debate over exactly who qualifies to get into mental health court because yeah - very few people just calmly and rationally decide to turn to a life of crime. And it's almost definitional, as some of the DSM diagnosis criteria require that the person have negative social interactions or the like.
To me it seems a contradiction that temporary insanity is a defense but we happily lock up the permanently insane.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 13, 2022, 04:24:57 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 03:35:09 PMA couple of years ago they started up a "mental health court" here in Edmonton. And there was a big debate over exactly who qualifies to get into mental health court because yeah - very few people just calmly and rationally decide to turn to a life of crime. And it's almost definitional, as some of the DSM diagnosis criteria require that the person have negative social interactions or the like.
To me it seems a contradiction that temporary insanity is a defense but we happily lock up the permanently insane.
The thinking is this:
If someone suffers from non-insane automatism, then once that condition passes they're no risk to society, plus they weren't guilty in the first place.
If someone is not criminally responsible by reason of mental defect (NCRMD) they're also not guilty, but they continue to be a risk to society so we lock them up on that basis until they're better.
But it's the "until they're better" part that gets tricky. It's pretty common to deal with someone who commits minor crimes but probably fits the NCRMD criteria. Defence lawyers will not want to advance a NCRMD defence because they'll be locked up perhaps indefinitely, instead of a minor stint in the local hoosegow.
Interesting case. The exception they keep alive is pretty narrow though - self-intoxication to the point of automatism. Just getting drunk and committing crimes won't do it, you have to be so out of it you have no ability to understand reality at all.
What annoyed the court was that the law, as drafted, imposed the same punishment for the "automaton" person as for someone will full consciousness committing the same crime. The court left the door open for imposing a separate punishment/create a crime of, basically, 'voluntarily getting that wasted in the first place, thus putting others at risk'. Or alternatively, a negligence based crime of intoxication if it was reasonably foreseeable that the violence could follow.
Which would seem sensible, if the exception for automatism was allowed.
In any event, it is likely to be pretty rare in practice - I doubt we will see a rash of judges letting people off because they drank a bottle of vodka before beating their spouse or whatever. The standard they suggest for automatism is petty extreme.
How much cybernetic enhancement does it require before you are legally an automaton?
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2022, 05:04:20 PMHow much cybernetic enhancement does it require before you are legally an automaton?
Enhance until no free will detectable.
If you're too drunk to understand reality then you are unlikely to do more than lie on the ground. If you manage to enter and start a vechicle, or fire a gun, or stab someone, or give false information on your tax return, then clearly you still understand reality.
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 07:58:09 AMIf you're too drunk to understand reality then you are unlikely to do more than lie on the ground. If you manage to enter and start a vechicle, or fire a gun, or stab someone, or give false information on your tax return, then clearly you still understand reality.
That's like saying that sleepwalking isn't a thing. If you can walk and open doors, then you're obviously not sleeping. Retaining some skills that have been trained by repetition to the point of automation doesn't mean that you're applying them with the minimum understanding of reality we expect from a reasonable person.
Quote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:51:16 PMIs it really good public policy to say "oh well, you were just highly intoxicated. Sorry victims, nothing we can do here"?
Would that happen to drunk/impaired driving?
There are multiple cases a year where someone drank way too much, drove and cause a fatal accident. They are usually charged with a crime, more than just driving/operating under influence.
But now, could they get these supplemental charges struck down and be only guilty of drunk driving?
I recall from ancient times when I was working in a traffic department for a few weeks, that in Germany, judges would assume that if you were able to drive a car while having a blood alcohol level above X (I think it was 0.16% at the time?) that you were a habitual drinker and withdraw your license for a year, and you had to do a psych evaluation before receiving it bacj.
Quote from: Razgovory on May 14, 2022, 05:04:20 PMHow much cybernetic enhancement does it require before you are legally an automaton?
Borg Level. Or Robocop with his intact directives.
Quote from: viper37 on May 15, 2022, 12:31:16 PMQuote from: Barrister on May 13, 2022, 01:51:16 PMIs it really good public policy to say "oh well, you were just highly intoxicated. Sorry victims, nothing we can do here"?
Would that happen to drunk/impaired driving?
There are multiple cases a year where someone drank way too much, drove and cause a fatal accident. They are usually charged with a crime, more than just driving/operating under influence.
But now, could they get these supplemental charges struck down and be only guilty of drunk driving?
That wouldn't generally be enough to trigger an automatism defence.
The defence is going to be rare.
In the case, they state automatism is more like completely involuntary movements - someone totally disconnected from reality. It is unlikely anyone in that state would be able to drive at all. Indeed, the Court stated that it is unlikely one could get automatism from booze alone.
Interestingly CPS has a bit on automatism and intoxication here - the Scottish case (not binding in England) sounds really interesting:
QuoteAutomatism
Disinhibition as a result of consuming drink and/or drugs is not automatism. Furthermore, automatism is not available to a defendant who has induced an acute state of involuntary behaviour as a result of his own voluntary consumption of intoxicants: R v Coley; R v McGhee; R v Harris [2013] Crim. L.R. 923 CA.
In Scotland, the High Court of Justiciary has held that automatism cannot be established as a defence to a charge of driving with excess alcohol upon proof of a transitory state of parasomnia (sleep-walking) resulting from and induced by deliberate and self-induced intoxication: Finegan v Heywood, The Times, May 10, 2000. Although this decision is not binding upon the courts in England and Wales, it is a persuasive authority.
QuoteIn the case, they state automatism is more like completely involuntary movements - someone totally disconnected from reality. It is unlikely anyone in that state would be able to drive at all. Indeed, the Court stated that it is unlikely one could get automatism from booze alone.
Yeah I could see it happen if someone was taking prescription drugs and then got drunk/intoxicated. My instinct is if it's something that doctors/pharmacists flag (and I've been told "don't drink with this") or maybe is listed on the back of the packet/in the leaflet then that shouldn't be a defence.
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2022, 12:04:30 PMQuote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 07:58:09 AMIf you're too drunk to understand reality then you are unlikely to do more than lie on the ground. If you manage to enter and start a vechicle, or fire a gun, or stab someone, or give false information on your tax return, then clearly you still understand reality.
That's like saying that sleepwalking isn't a thing. If you can walk and open doors, then you're obviously not sleeping. Retaining some skills that have been trained by repetition to the point of automation doesn't mean that you're applying them with the minimum understanding of reality we expect from a reasonable person.
If the person didn't perform the acts, then who did?
I know that the idea that a person is only their highest order reasoning ego, and not the whole human, is common in law, but it's ridiculous and unsound.
The person preformed the act but the act isn't a crime. To commit a crime a person must be able to make a decision. If someone is killed by something unable able to make a decision such as a sleeping person or a robot then its not a crime.
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 02:41:14 PMIf the person didn't perform the acts, then who did?
I know that the idea that a person is only their highest order reasoning ego, and not the whole human, is common in law, but it's ridiculous and unsound.
Is your issue then with the entire concept of mens rea?
Quote from: DGuller on May 15, 2022, 04:40:03 PMQuote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 02:41:14 PMIf the person didn't perform the acts, then who did?
I know that the idea that a person is only their highest order reasoning ego, and not the whole human, is common in law, but it's ridiculous and unsound.
Is your issue then with the entire concept of mens rea?
I think it's often applied in an unsound way.
Quote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 04:53:30 PMQuote from: DGuller on May 15, 2022, 04:40:03 PMIs your issue then with the entire concept of mens rea?
I think it's often applied in an unsound way.
But that's an objection that5 could be levelled at pretty much anything.
I think thinking is often applied in an unsound way.
I think gravity is often applied in an unsound way.
I think language is often applied in an unsound way.
etc
Quote from: grumbler on May 15, 2022, 05:36:22 PMQuote from: The Brain on May 15, 2022, 04:53:30 PMQuote from: DGuller on May 15, 2022, 04:40:03 PMIs your issue then with the entire concept of mens rea?
I think it's often applied in an unsound way.
But that's an objection that5 could be levelled at pretty much anything.
I think thinking is often applied in an unsound way.
I think gravity is often applied in an unsound way.
I think language is often applied in an unsound way.
etc
I don't follow.
You like even less