The Supreme Court rules that extreme intoxication is the proper defense in court

This judgment, issued by the Supreme Court of the land, invalidates Section 33.1 of the Penal Code.

One of the cases pending before the Supreme Court in this case is that of young Alberton Matthew W., who violently assaulted a woman in Calgary on January 12, 2018, causing her permanent injuries. Brown.

Mr. These acts were committed while Brown was intoxicated with alcohol and narcotics. Faced with aggravated assault charges against him, the accused pleaded not guilty due to the serious intoxication that led to the automation.

In their unanimous decision, the judges ruled that this protection for serious intoxication was valid in cases of violent crimes.

This judgment therefore overturns the acquittal judgment granted in the first instance in favor of Matthew Brown.

In addition, senior judges are barred by Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which states that self-induced intoxication, in which a person is unable to control himself or herself and is aware of his or her behavior, is not a valid defense in court.

In a judgment written by Judge Nicholas Cassier, this section of the criminal law states that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is harder to imagine an array of extreme limits than a denial of will Men Rhea And the presumption of innocence all at once.

[…] Despite its narrow scope and infrequent use, Section 33.1 restricts not one but three fundamental rights of the accused., Said Judge Cashier. It accuses the accused:

• In cases where the latter acted involuntarily or the minimum amount required was not at fault;
• In cases where the accused fails to make a decision to prove the essential elements of the alleged crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

These limitations, the judge rewrites, Establishes a regime of absolute responsibility that somehow undermines many basic beliefs It builds our criminal legal system.

Two other reasons

The Supreme Court heard two other cases: David Sullivan and Thomas Chan, two Ontarians who committed violent crimes in their province – individually. Both men have challenged their convictions in the Ontario Court of Appeals.

Both are in a state of mental illness due to drug use and stabbing family members. David Sullivan injures his mother when Thomas Chan kills his father.

According to the Supreme Court ruling, Thomas Chan deserves a new trial. Meanwhile David Sullivan was released.

The central banks are considering the decision

Canadian Justice Minister David Lametti has told the government Will carefully examine this result And the judges will work diligently to close this loophole in the criminal law that has been brought to light.

The Minister stressed that the cases handled by this judgment of the Supreme Court were not ordinary drug cases or everyday cases.

The Supreme Court judgment states Very serious and very rare casesHe insisted.

David Lametti said Share Disappointment Victims of this decision: These are violent crimes and they are victims.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in its 104-page judgment, directed the Canadian Parliament to enact legislation to protect victims of acts committed by persons with severe voluntary intoxication.

The Supreme Court reiterates the importance of security In light of the right to equality and dignity of women and children who are victims of violent crimes, especially those who may be subjected to sexual and domestic violence at the hands of drunken persons.

That Creates a compelling and significant social purposeSay the judges.

Minister Lametti says he understands the urgency of the situation.

” Yes, there is a sense of urgency. We should not leave gaps in criminal law, especially for violent crimes. ⁇

The court gave us possible avenues to follow, he continued. […] But we obviously want to protect the victims. We want the perpetrators to be punished where appropriate.

One of these ways is to convict a person of serious addiction of drowning in a state of mind similar to autism.

Criminal attorney Luis Bello explained at the event Isabel is rich In RDI, This kind of law will punish the accused and put himself in such a position that it will harm others..

But it does not have to hold that defendant responsible for the crime.Or damage caused.

However, the criminal prosecutor continued It is very tricky to think about creating a legal regime where you can punish someone who has no moral responsibility.

Where is the justice in this?

In a written statement, Janet Homet – who was violently assaulted by Matthew Brown – said she was concerned about the consequences of the ruling.

However, while I am very disappointed with this decision, at this point it is not about meShe wrote.

” It is important to remember that [cette décision] It has a negative impact on the victims of the worst attacks in this country. Some of them have died in these attacks. ⁇

Ms. According to Hammet, Display It emerges from the court’s ruling that it offers no protection to the victims, only the attackers.

So Janet Hummet concludes: Where is the justice in this? This opens up a terrifying violation and I fear for future victims.

With information from Louis Bluin