Supreme Court rules extreme intoxication defence available for violent crimes

[Allan]

This is an interesting decision and could result in alterations to the Criminal Code that could change how crimes committed by an impaired person are handled. In much the same way that an insane person cannot be held accountable for a crime it seems the court feels that a person who is extremely intoxicated has the same protections. This despite the fact that unlike an insane person, the intoxicated person reached that stage voluntarily.

A Calgary man who, while naked, broke into the home of a university professor and attacked her with a broom handle has seen his acquittal reinstated after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the defence of self-induced extreme intoxication is available in cases of violence.

Former Mount Royal University student Matthew Brown was charged with break-and-enter and aggravated assault after a 2018 incident that left Janet Hamnett with broken bones in her hands.

Brown's is one of three cases the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) ruled on on Friday that deal with whether the defence of extreme intoxication to the point of automatism — a term describing unconscious, involuntary behaviour — is available to those who chose to take intoxicants and then end up committing acts of violence.

Link

 

[Bear5131]

I am not aware much of Canada's laws except I know they are very harsh of Americans who have even one D.U.I. from entering Canada.

It seems to me how serious they take it, I don't think his defense will work.

 

[Allan]

I am not aware much of Canada's laws except I know they are very harsh of Americans who have even one D.U.I. from entering Canada.

Could I enter the US with a criminal conviction?

It seems to me how serious they take it, I don't think his defense will work.

It worked. His acquittal was restored by the Supreme Court.

 

[Lovebug]

IOW, if you want to kill someone and want special consideration, imbibe. It is probably not that simple, but the possibilities are endless., no?

 

[Allan]

IOW, if you want to kill someone and want special consideration, imbibe. It is probably not that simple, but the possibilities are endless., no?

Big can of worms has been opened.

 

[Bear5131]

Could I enter the US with a criminal conviction?

It worked. His acquittal was restored by the Supreme Court.

In response to your first question I assume so with all the illegals entering and staying in Sanctuary states/cities

 

[Allan]

In response to your first question I assume so with all the illegals entering and staying in Sanctuary states/cities

I looked it up and there's information on entering both countries with a DUI conviction here.

it looks like it's possible but harder to enter Canada.

 

[Bear5131]

I looked it up and there's information on entering both countries with a DUI conviction here.

it looks like it's possible but harder to enter Canada.

I miss the old days when I just needed my drivers license to see Niagra Falls

This reminds me when I was younger I used to see Canadian license plates all the time in the states, what happened?

 

[Paradoxical]

This is an interesting decision and could result in alterations to the Criminal Code that could change how crimes committed by an impaired person are handled. In much the same way that an insane person cannot be held accountable for a crime it seems the court feels that a person who is extremely intoxicated has the same protections. This despite the fact that unlike an insane person, the intoxicated person reached that stage voluntarily.



Link

Whew! Canada.

Shows how rampant liberalism will ruin a society.

 

[Allan]

I miss the old days when I just needed my drivers license to see Niagra Falls

This reminds me when I was younger I used to see Canadian license plates all the time in the states, what happened?

Harder to travel to the US with Covid-19. You still require testing even for vaccinated people. In addition there's concern that the US hasn't taken precautions seriously.

I used to go twice a year at least - to Florida and Texas. I don't expect I'll ever go back.

 

[Paradoxical]

Harder to travel to the US with Covid-19. You still require testing even for vaccinated people. In addition there's concern that the US hasn't taken precautions seriously.

I used to go twice a year at least - to Florida and Texas. I don't expect I'll ever go back.

Very sad to see that Canada has go0ne uber-liberal totalitarian.

 

[Overitall]

I looked it up and there's information on entering both countries with a DUI conviction here.

it looks like it's possible but harder to enter Canada.

Couldn't the same defense be made when it comes to DUI?

 

[Allan]

Couldn't the same defense be made when it comes to DUI?

Possibly. The company I worked for was charged and convicted for a DUI accident for overserving a patron at an event. The court ruled that we had overserved him to the point that his judgement was substantially impaired. He walked home, continued to drink, then killed someone with his car.

In a bar or restaurant serving staff can track how many drinks a patron has had via the POS, but at an event with multiple bartenders it's harder.

 

[Overitall]

Possibly. The company I worked for was charged and convicted for a DUI accident for overserving a patron at an event. The court ruled that we had overserved him to the point that his judgement was substantially impaired. He walked home, continued to drink, then killed someone with his car.

In a bar or restaurant serving staff can track how many drinks a patron has had via the POS, but at an event with multiple bartenders it's harder.

I'm thinking if it could be used for DUI then the laws pertaining to it should be repealed. There's no laws against drinking. The laws only apply when you choose to drive.

I've heard of the establishments serving drinks can be charged as contributing to the DUI, but I'm not sure about the specifics.

 

[Allan]

I'm thinking if it could be used for DUI then the laws pertaining to it should be repealed. There's no laws against drinking. The laws only apply when you choose to drive.

The laws will have to be changed. Once the SC rules lower courts have to follow the precedent. Like I said - big can of worms.

I've heard of the establishments serving drinks can be charged as contributing to the DUI, but I'm not sure about the specifics.

That happens all the time. In our case we were secondary almost, because he drank after at home. But even though that happened the court ruled (based on the credit card evidence) that our service had allowed him to get to the point of impaired judgement.

 

[soylentgreen]

The laws will have to be changed. Once the SC rules lower courts have to follow the precedent. Like I said - big can of worms.

That happens all the time. In our case we were secondary almost, because he drank after at home. But even though that happened the court ruled (based on the credit card evidence) that our service had allowed him to get to the point of impaired judgement.

These cases highlight the problem that has concerned both the judges and the politicians.

From your link.

Twenty-eight years ago, Parliament made changes to the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of self-induced intoxication defence but resulting in "not a very well-worded section," which "has led to judges coming to different interpretations of it," wrote University of Calgary law professor Lisa Silver in a blog post about the cases.

Silver said in her post that the SCC needed to weigh in on the law in that area because judges continued to arrive at different conclusions.

Looks like parliament has a job of having to rewrite some criminal code. Not unusual but a bit more of serious consequence than most times changes are needed.