Canada's top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes

[Eugene]

Source: Global News

Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes

By Amanda Connolly Global News
Posted May 13, 2022 11:37 am
Updated May 13, 2022 7:05 pm

The Supreme Court of Canada issued a major decision on Friday allowing criminal defendants in cases involving assault — including sexual assault — to use a defence known as self-induced extreme intoxication.

Effectively, it means defendants who voluntarily consume intoxicating substances and then assault or interfere with the bodily integrity of another person can avoid conviction if they can prove they were too intoxicated to control their actions.

“To deprive a person of their liberty for that involuntary conduct committed in a state akin to automatism — conduct that cannot be criminal — violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions,” wrote Justice Nicholas Kasirer in the unanimous nine-judge ruling.

Under Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, extreme intoxication — formally known as non-insane automatism — cannot be used as a defence in criminal cases where the accused voluntarily ingested the intoxicating substance.

The court’s ruling declares that section is unconstitutional.

-snip-

Read more: https://globalnews.ca/news/8832723/supreme-court-canada-extreme-intoxication/

[Pobeka]

1. Wow. If you can't control yourself, don't get intoxicated.

The choice to intoxicate oneself was what voluntary in the first place.

To me, this is a case of overthinking the exceedingly obvious. I hope it is somehow reversed.

How do you punish a drunk driver now in Canada?

[Irish_Dem]

2. If you want to commit a crime, get drunk first.

[PoliticAverse]

3. So get really drunk, rape a woman, get away with it legally.

> violates the principles of fundamental justice in a system of criminal justice based on personal responsibility for one’s actions,

Apparently there is no personal responsibility for getting drunk?

[ananda]

4. Are those judges Trumpers too?

Is it contagious?

SHEESH

[PoliticAverse]

6. This sounds more like the case of extreme liberal justices. n/t

[Sympthsical]

5. How does this work with DUIs?

Because that would be . . . something.

[Tomconroy]

11. DUI usually doesn't involve intent.

[dalton99a]

7. "The alcohol made me do it" "Ok, you're free to go"

WTF

[Ohio Joe]

8. Err.... That's crazy...

That… Just makes zero sense to me.

[Solly Mack]

9. So, a rape victim just needs to get super drunk before they kill their rapist?

[Tomconroy]

10. It's a common ruling: intoxication theoretically negates intent.

As a practical matter I personally am unaware of it's being successfully used as a defense at trial.