Canada Supreme Court judge rules extreme intoxication can be used as a legal defense for violent crimes

The Canadian Supreme Court ruled this week that extreme intoxication due to self-ingested alcohol or drugs can be used as a legal defense in cases of violent crimes.

The opinion, written by Justice Nicholas Kasirer, says in cases of alcohol or drug induced automatism, defense attorneys can claim “non-mental disorder automatism” as a defense in violent crime cases.

Essentially, this means defendants can claim they were not in control of their actions and are therefore innocent of violent crimes they committed under the influence. The ruling overturns the implementation of the law that made it illegal to use extreme intoxication as a legal defense in a violent crime.

“Its impact on the principles of fundamental justice is disproportionate to its overarching public benefits. It should therefore be declared unconstitutional,” wrote Kasirer. He also reasoned in the opinion that a person’s decision to get extremely intoxicated does not mean they had an intent to commit a violent crime.

The ruling is being criticized by women’s advocacy groups, who point out the law enacted in 1995 was necessary to protect women who are disproportionately affected by domestic abuse and violent crime.

“We know that the criminal justice system too often fails and retraumatizes survivors of sexual violence,” said Kat Owens from the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF). “We need to improve existing responses to sexual violence, while exploring alternative responses and working to prevent gender-based violence.”

The ruling comes after a case last year in the Court of Appeals in which David Sullivan, who was convicted of aggravated assault after stabbing his mother while he was in a psychotic state from overdosing during an attempted suicide, appealed his conviction.

The appeals court overturned his conviction, ruling the inability to use extreme intoxication as a defense was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s decision, upholding Sullivan’s acquittal.