Criminal Defences and Automatism Overview

Criminal Defences

• Accused's Defence Arguments: Accuseds can use three arguments for their defence:
  • Deny committing the act (actus reus).
  • Argue they lacked intent (mens rea).
  • Claim a valid excuse for their actions.
• Alibi Defence: An alibi should be disclosed early to allow police and crown investigations. The accused may testify on their alibi to allow the jury to assess their credibility, and for cross-examination.
• Maracle Case: The Ontario Court of Appeal ordered a retrial due to substantial errors affecting the accused's alibi, possibly the judge suggesting less weight for an alibi not disclosed to investigators early.

Automatism

• Automatism: Automatic functioning without conscious effort or control.
• Non-Insane Automatism: Caused by external factors (sleepwalking, physical blow, physical ailments, severe psychological trauma). Not a recurring danger; considered temporary insanity. - The accused has the burden of proof to show significant evidence.
• Insane Automatism (NCR): Caused by disease of the mind, presenting recurring danger. - The term commonly for insane automatism in the Criminal Code is "Not Criminally Responsible." - Conditions for NCR: mental disorder at the time of the act, and the disorder made the individual incapable of appreciating the act or knowing it was wrong. - The accused, or the Crown, can raise the NCR defense; the party raising it bears the burden of proof. Courts first determine if the accused is fit to stand trial. - Questions at a fitness to stand trial hearing: - Understanding of the proceeding. - Understanding of potential consequences - Ability to communicate with the lawyer
• Consequences of Unfit to Stand Trial Accused: Trial cannot proceed, accused is returned to jail/hospital until fit.

Intoxication

• Intoxication as a Defence: It's a defence for specific intent offences, but not for general intent offences. Aggravated assault is a general intent offense.
• Not Guilty by Intoxication: If a person is found not guilty of murder due to intoxication, they might still be found guilty of manslaughter (a general intent offense).
• Daviault Case: Accused was found not guilty because of reasonable doubt about possessing necessary intent for sexual assault (due to extreme intoxication).
• Pharmacologist's Evidence: The pharmacologist presented evidence suggesting a possible blackout due to a significant amount of alcohol consumption, thereby rendering the accused unable to function normally.
• S.33.1 Criminal Code Amendment Impact: This amendment made intoxication a defense against general intent offences; Daviault likely would have been found guilty.
• Justice Sopinka's Minority Opinion: Society, in his view, should punish people who voluntarily become intoxicated and pose risks to others.

Carter Defence (and its changed status)

• Carter Defence: Accused claimed their blood alcohol level was lower than breathalyzer results because if they drank a certain amount then this would be their level by evidence.
• Criminal Code Amendments (2008): Amendments prohibited challenging breathalyzer results without prior evidence of machine/operational malfunction— the amount drunk could no longer be presented as evidence in a trial, unless it was argued the machine malfuntioned.

Battered Woman Syndrome

• R. v. Lavallee: Introduced battered woman syndrome as a legal defense. Prior law required imminent danger to justify self-defense; with this change police can charge the abuser if the abused will not.
• R. v. Graveline: Graveline used non-insane automatism instead of battered woman syndrome to argue defense because there seemed no imminent threat. While the Crown argued her amnesia followed her action, Defense experts saw it as a consequence of the traumatic relationship.
• R. v. Ryan: Doucet's actions constituted "counseling to commit murder" because the definition of counselling includes "procure, solicit, or incite." She might have also faced charges for aiding and abetting, attempting murder (might not qualify based on whether any action was taken to commit the crime, or merely solicited in this case), or conspiracy, (though conspiracy would be difficult due to the fact that the hitman in question was an undercover cop who never agreed to anything.)
• Intervener's Role: An intervener is a third party with special interest in a case; The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies and Women's Legal Education and Action Fund intervened to support the defense, promoting women's rights.
• Why Duress rather than BWS/Self-Defense: The lack of an imminent threat and cohabitation, or the fact that the abuse is less present in this case, makes the duress angle slightly better than Battered Woman Syndrome/Self-Defense.
  • Stay of proceedings:** No finding of guilty or not guilty, or a record is created; proceedings are simply stopped.

Self-Defence

• Justification for Self-Defense: Permitted for imminent danger, when no other option exists to protect oneself or property. Belief about the threat must be genuine.
• Acceptable Force in Self-Defense: Force necessary and proportional; intended to cause death or serious harm is not justified.
• Self-Defense Justifying Killing: Permissible if the person reasonably believes their life is endangered.

Necessity

• Necessity Defence Characteristics: Applies to situations with imminent risk, where a person commits a crime as an unavoidable consequence of immediate and urgent circumstances (or danger).
• R. v. Ungar: A case where the accused claimed necessity as a defense for driving dangerously to get a patient to the hospital. The court dismissed the charges; the court felt that in the circumstances, every second could have been a matter of life and death for the patient.

Other Cases/Situations

• Traffic Cop Holding Up Speeding Surgeon: The police officer's argument was that stopping the physician prevented a potential accident & saved time if the doctor was involved in an accident. Others felt that the officer should have the surgeon follow in a cruiser, possibly with lights for a short while. The outcome was that the ticket was withdrawn.
• Dudley and Stephens: This case highlighted that necessity is insufficient to justify killing someone unless it is a lesser risk than the alternative.
• Brooks: The court found that despite being present, no charge of murder was to be levied due to the fact that he had no active role in the killing of Parker.

Duress

• Duress Defence Application: Available if an individual is forced to commit an offence via threats of death or bodily harm from another person. - The threatener must be present physically at the time, and the threat must be imminent. Murder is not a crime where duress can be used as a defense; several other offences also fall under this restriction, as per section 17 of the Criminal Code.
• R. v. Keller: The defence of duress failed because the threatener wasn't present; the threat wasn't immediate.
• R. v. Ruzic: The defendant sought to declare section 17 of the Criminal Code unconstitutional, arguing that the requirement for the threatener's presence was unduly restrictive. The common law defence of duress was expanded to situations where the threatener is not present, and can even be in the future.
• Comparison of Duress and Compulsion: The common law defence of duress is broader than the statutory defence of compulsion as it does not require the threatener`s presence, the threat may be in the future, and the threat might not be towards the accused.

This quiz explores key concepts in criminal defences, including the arguments an accused can use and the importance of alibi disclosure. It also delves into the topic of automatism, distinguishing between non-insane automatism and its implications in legal cases.