Justice Minister David Lametti has introduced legislation that would amend the Penal Code to ensure that people who voluntarily become extremely intoxicated can be legally held accountable for their actions while in this state.
The legislation was introduced in response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in May stating that extreme self-induced intoxication can be used as a defense in cases where someone is charged with an act of violence.
“By repealing this section of the Penal Code, the court’s decision left a gap in the law. Bill C-28 fills that gap,” Lametti said Friday. “It simply came to our notice then.
“It amends the Penal Code so that a person would be responsible for the violence he commits in a state of extreme intoxication if he ended up in that state for his own criminal negligence.”
TARGET | Liberals seek to eliminate extreme self-induced intoxication as a legal defense
Liberals seek to eliminate extreme self-induced intoxication as a legal defense
Justice Minister David Lametti joined Power & Politics on Friday to discuss Bill C-28, which aims to ensure that people who voluntarily become extremely intoxicated can be held legally responsible for their actions while are in this state.
The Department of Justice defines extreme intoxication as a rare condition that is almost impossible to obtain with the consumption of alcohol alone, one that leaves a person without voluntary control or awareness of their actions.
To use this defense successfully, lawyers must prove by evidence and expert testimony that an individual was in this state of extreme intoxication when he committed the acts of which he is accused.
In 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that extreme poisoning can be used as a legal defense. A year later, Parliament amended the Penal Code by introducing Article 33.1 to prevent a defendant from using extreme intoxication as a defense against violent crime. The Supreme Court ruled out Article 33.1 last month, saying it violated the Bill of Rights.
Bill C-28 is not limited to reinstating Article 33.1. It seeks to invalidate extreme self-induced intoxication as a legal defense by moving it to the area of criminal negligence, just as not providing a child’s life necessities is criminal negligence.
A Justice Department official who spoke on the background said that if the law becomes law, the courts will have to decide whether to expect a reasonable person to know that consuming drugs and alcohol in certain amounts could prevent him from doing so. realize their actions.
Under the law, if lawyers can convince a court that a reasonable person must know the effects of alcohol consumption in certain amounts, they can prove criminal negligence and the defendant can be convicted of the charges they face.
The recent Supreme Court ruling motivated the move
The Supreme Court rulings in May this year are what prompted Lametti to draft the legislation. One of the sentences involved the case of former Mount Royal University student Matthew Brown, who was charged with aggravated admission and assault in connection with a 2018 incident.
After consuming about 2.5 grams of magic mushrooms and drinking 12 to 14 ounces of vodka and some beer, a naked Brown burst into Janet Hamnett’s house and attacked her with a broomstick, breaking her. several bones from his hands.
Brown used the defense of extreme self-induced intoxication and was acquitted. The Alberta Court of Appeals overturned that sentence and found Brown guilty of aggravated assault. This sentence was appealed to the Supreme Court.
In its 104-page ruling on Brown, the Supreme Court overturned the Alberta Court of Appeal’s decision and urged Parliament to enact legislation to protect victims of violent crime committed by people in states of ‘extreme intoxication.
Matthew Brown, on the left, was naked and with magic mushrooms when he burst into Janet Hamnett’s house in Calgary, on the right, and hit her with a broomstick. (Meghan Grant / CBC, Mount Royal University)
The court said that “protecting victims of violent crime, especially in the light of the interests of equality and dignity of women and children who are vulnerable to intoxicated sexual and domestic acts, is an urgent and substantial social purpose.”
The other two cases on which the Supreme Court ruled at the same time were unanimous decisions in the David Sullivan and Thomas Chan cases, two Ontario cases argued together with similar circumstances. The SCC upheld Sullivan’s acquittal and ordered a new trial for Chan.
Lametti said that while this defense can only be used in a handful of cases, it is important to close the gap in the law because of the misinformation that began to circulate after the Supreme Court ruling.
“Being drunk or drugged is not a defense against committing criminal acts such as sexual assault,” he said. “That was the law before the Supreme Court decision and that is still the law today. And all Canadians need to understand that clearly.”
Protection of vulnerable groups
The Minister of Women and Gender Equality, Marci Ien, said the government should address widespread comments on social media platforms suggesting that rape and other sexual offenses are legal in Canada as long as the author is intoxicated.
“The extreme intoxication we are talking about is not about being drunk, it is not about being high. The Supreme Court has made it clear that drunkenness is not a defense against crimes of violence and sexual assault,” he said.
LOOK: The Liberals are proposing an amendment to the Penal Code on extreme intoxication:
Liberals propose amendment to Penal Code in response to Supreme Court ruling on extreme poisoning
Justice Minister David Lametti announces a bill to “address the gap” in defending extreme intoxication following a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada.
Yen said women and minorities are already disproportionately vulnerable to acts of violence and sexual violence and allowing the defense of extreme self-induced intoxication could jeopardize their equality and security.
“We see indigenous women and girls, racialized people, and LGBTQ2 + people experiencing gender-based violence more than any other segment of our society,” she said.
“That’s exactly why we make sure that people who choose to use drugs or alcohol in a criminally negligent manner are criminally liable.”