Intoxication Flashcards
DPP v Beard
Held: evidence of drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into consideration to determine whether he had formed the intent necessary to constitute the particular crime. If he was so drunk that he was incapable of forming the intent required he could not be convicted of a crime which was committed only if the intent was proved
R v George
Facts: D is drunk and dumped old man in bathtub, injured him until man would give him money.
Held: D innocent of robbery, guilty of assault. Specific vs general intent.
Ritchie: TJ found D knew he was hitting him. Drunkenness not a defence to assault because no suggestion of permanent/temporary insanity, D’s own statements knew he was applying force to old man.
Fauteux: Specific intent (robbery) vs general intent (assault). To be acquitted of assault, D would have to be so drunk as to be incapable of applying force intentionally. Such a required drunken state is tantamount to insanity.
Leary v The Queen
Issue: Is drunkenness a defence for rape?
Held Pigeon (majority): rape is a crime involving only a general intention as distinguished from a specific intention and it is therefore a crime in which the defence of drunkenness can have no application.
Dickson (dissent): drunkenness not a defence to rape but evidence of drunkenness may be considered by the jury in determining whether proved BRD the required mens rea.
R v Bernard
Facts: The accused forced the complainant to have sexual intercourse with him, and committed a further assaulted her. The accused raised the defence of drunkenness. Evidence on record suggested that the accused was able to walk, talk, and use objects such as a record player. The drunkenness claim was only based on the accused’s testimony.
Held: Appeal dismissed. no drunkenness defence for GI.
McIntyre: Drunkenness is defence for specific intent if lacks the capacity to form the specific intent required. NOT a defence for general intent. SA causing bodily harm is GI offence. Leary affirmed (no drunkenness defence for GI).
This case gives definitions for general and specific intent
Dickson (dissent): Wants to overturn Leary, make all offences open to possibility of intoxication negating mens rea.
R v Daviault
Facts: Chronic alcoholic, drank ungodly amount (would die if hadn’t developed tolerance). He s assault elderly woman.
Held: s 7 and 11d mandate exceptions or flexibility in “Leary rule” for extreme intoxication -> evidence of extreme intoxication “akin to automatism or insanity” to be considered in whether to find min intent element in GI offences
R v Tatton
Facts Kingston, Ontario. Tatton has broken up with his girlfriend, and he is drinking heavily in his girlfriend’s house. T is frying bacon on the stove. He leaves the house and goes to Tim Hortons. The house catches on fire.
The law does not allow offenders to rely on self-induced intoxication falling short of automatism as an excuse for general intent offences (Daviault)
Comes up with process to determine whether an offence is general or specific, starts with statutory interpretation
R v Sullivan (Chan)
house, fatally stabbed father and injured father’s gf
Sullivan: prescribed drug to help quit smoking. The drug was known to cause psychosis as a side effect, which Mr. Sullivan had been experiencing leading up to the offence. In December 2013, Mr. Sullivan attempted to take his own life by taking 30–80 tablets of the drug, but he fell into a psychotic episode, culminating in stabbing, but not killing, his mother. He was charged with aggravated assault and assault with a weapon
Issue: Is 33.1 constitutional?
Held: 33.1 is unconstitutional under ss. 7 and 11(d) and cannot be saved under s. 1. New trial for Chan, Sullivan acquitted of assault charges.
three Charter breaches of the prohibition on the intoxication defence as identified in Daviault,
- the voluntariness breach,
- the improper substitution breach, and
- the mens rea breach.
