Photo: The Canadian Press
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada David Lametti rises during question period on Thursday, June 2, 2022 in Ottawa. Liberal Justice Minister David Lametti is expected to introduce a bill as soon as Friday that would respond to a Supreme Court decision to allow extreme voluntary intoxication in defense of serious crimes. THE CANADIAN PRESS / Adrian Wyld
Federal Liberals introduced a bill on Friday that seeks to eliminate “extreme self-induced poisoning” as a legal defense against violent crime, after the Supreme Court overturned a similar provision in May.
Bill C-28, introduced by Justice Minister David Lametti, would add a new language to the Penal Code that creates criminal responsibility when a person committing a violent crime is “in a state of negligent self-induced extreme intoxication.”
For a person to be held liable for their actions in accordance with the draft update of section 33.1 of the Code, prosecutors should establish that they were criminally negligent.
The court should consider whether a reasonable person in this situation could have foreseen the risk that ingestion of intoxicants could “cause extreme intoxication and lead the person to harm another person.”
The specific circumstances of the case would take into account the analysis, such as the substance itself and the amount consumed, the mood of the person at that time and anything he has done to mitigate this risk.
“Extreme poisoning” is defined in the bill as poisoning that makes a person unaware or unable to consciously control their behavior.
It is not a presumed defense, that is, the evidence would only apply if a defendant specifically raises it.
This has only happened a handful of times, Lametti said, stressing that advocating for “extreme intoxication” is rare.
It would not apply to the vast majority of cases where there are drugs or alcohol, and “almost never” in situations where only alcohol was consumed.
“It’s not about being really drunk or drugged,” he said, repeating several times, “Being drunk or drugged is not a defense against committing criminal acts such as sexual assault.”
Marci Yen, the Liberal Minister for Women and Gender and Youth Equality, told reporters that the government is increasingly concerned about misinformation online suggesting that the recent Supreme Court ruling meant being drunk could be a defense for sexual assault.
He cited social media posts with hundreds of thousands of likes and views, including one suggesting that “rape is now legal if you’re intoxicated.”
Lametti said one of the motivations for closing the law gap so quickly was to address some of the growing fear and confusion surrounding the decision.
“You don’t want anyone to think, ‘Oh, I can have a few drinks and do whatever I want,'” he joked.
In its May unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court made it clear that being drunk will never allow anyone to break free from a violent crime.
But Judge Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the ruling that condemning someone for behaving in a state of automatism, or when they are too intoxicated to stay in control, violates the principles of fundamental justice.
Under the previous version of the Penal Code, did the court determine that a person could be convicted without the prosecution having to prove that he acted voluntarily or that he never intended to commit a crime? – although a “guilty act” and a “guilty mind” usually have to be present for someone to be held criminally responsible.
On this basis, the court upheld two acquittals of men who committed violent acts after using drugs voluntarily and ordered a new trial in a similar third case.
He suggested that Parliament could enact new legislation to update the language of the Penal Code so that “extremely intoxicated” people could still be held responsible for their violent crimes.
Some groups expressed concern about the court decision, with Kerri Anne Froc of the National Women’s Association and the Law Steering Committee urging measures to protect women and children, often victims of ‘these crimes.
Lametti’s office reacted with what it called “lightning speed”, consulting with stakeholders, judicial intervenors and members of parliament to find a solution that could gain broad support.
Asked if he expects the bill to be passed by unanimous motions before the House of Commons and Senate are up next week for the summer break, Lametti said he is optimistic.
“There’s a point of agreement here and I hope we can move it forward.”
NPD justice critic Randall Garrison said in a statement that the NDP will press for the bill to be passed quickly.
Conservatives say they are still reviewing the legislation.
The section annulled by the court had been added by the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien in 1995, in response to a 1994 Supreme Court decision acquitting a man of sexual assault because he was drunk at the time of the crime.