Extreme intoxication can be used as a defense for violent crime, Canada’s supreme court rules

Self-inflicted extreme intoxication, or drinking too much alcohol to the point of losing control, is a legitimate defense in Canada for violent offenses such as homicide and sexual assault.

On Friday, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that a 1995 law that prohibits this defense was unconstitutional and in violation of the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As a result, defendants can now argue that their horrible acts were unintentional. They were the result of drinking or using drugs.

This defense will prevent them from being legally responsible for their actions. When someone uses an extreme intoxication or ‘non-mental disorder automatism’ defense, they claim they are not in their senses or had grossly impaired consciousness due to the drugs or alcohol in their systems. 

The constitutionality of this law came to light in three separate cases.

The court affirmed the acquittals in two of the instances. They suggested a trial might come into place in the third, according to the Friday ruling.

1995 law

One of the incidents concerned a person named David Sullivan. He attempted suicide in December 2013 by swallowing a prescription medicine with the side effect of psychosis. He then stabbed his mother, believing she was an alien, while in a psychotic state.

He was convicted of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon. An appeal court found the sentence unfair and said that the 1995 law was unconstitutional, acquitting David.

As per the court, intoxication that does not cause automatism’ is not a defense for violent crimes like murder or sexual assault.

While the courts are divided on the matter for years, women’s advocacy groups have traditionally backed the 1995 law. This law, they argue, is critical in reducing violence against women and children.

According to government statistics, women make up four out of every five victims of domestic violence in Canada.