Other Cases Involving Forensic Toxicology

Question 1

How s consent determined?

Answer 1

By reference to complainant’s subjective state of mind towards the touching at the time it occurred

Question 2

How is consent defined in the criminal code?

Answer 2

Voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question

Question 3

When is consent not obtained (5)?

Answer 3

Agreement made by someone other than the complainant
Complainant incapable of consenting
Accused abuses trust, power, authority
Complainant expresses lack of agreement (before or during)

Question 4

What is the most common drug involved in SA?

Answer 4

Alcohol

Question 5

What case defined automatism?

Answer 5

R. v. Stone

Question 6

What does section 33.1 say does not count as automatism?

Answer 6

If the automatism is
1. self-induced by voluntary intoxication
2. Offence charged is a violence-based offence

Question 7

Why was s. 33.1 enacted?

Answer 7

In response to R. v. DaviaultW

Question 8

What occurred in R. v. Daviault?

Answer 8

Created a pathway to exoneration for general intent offences through extreme intoxication

Question 9

What are crimes of general intent?

Answer 9

mens rea– or the criminal intent that renders an act criminally culpable – involves “such minimal thought and reasoning process” that even a high degree of intoxication is unlikely to absolve the accused of any criminal liability.

Question 10

What was determined in R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan?

Answer 10

Section 33.1 infringes s. 7 and 11 (d), cannot be saved under s. 1, is of no force and effect

Question 11

What does the decision in R. v. Sullivan; R. v. Chan mean?

Answer 11

Non-mental disorder is a defence even if
1. self-induced by voluntary intoxication; and
2. the offence is violent