Complete Defence - Common Law Defence
AUTOMATISM
Automatism - behaviour performed in a state of mental unconsciousness or dissociation without full awareness. Automatism is a term used to describe unconscious, involuntary behaviour, the state of a person who, though capable of action, is not conscious of what he is doing. It means an unconscious, involuntary act, where the mind does not go with what is being done. For example, sleepwalking or reflexes.
- complete defence - common law defence
- experts are often brought in to explain these states of altered consciousness
- defence was originally used for organic disorders such as
- epilepsy- fugues- arteriosclerosis
- diabetes- dissociated states
Voluntariness - conscious control of one’s physical movements
- has historically been analyzed as an essential part of the actus reus
- all acts are assumed to be voluntary, unless the accused brings forth evidence of the opposite
- once voluntariness is in question, it is up to the crown to prove b.a.r.d. that there was voluntariness
Test - the test to determine if you are sane or there is a mental disorder depends on
- whether the cause of the incident was external or internal
- likelihood of recurrence
When an action is involuntary, the accused is ordinarily not guilty and acquitted
- except if the involuntariness is attributed to a mental disorder (insanity)
Before new legislation in 1992, these were distinguished as “insane” or “non-insane” automatism
- insane automatically meant that you would be institutionalized
NCR - (1992) not criminally responsible due to mental disorder - three outcomes of verdict
1. absolute discharge - if the accused is not a significant threat to the safety of the public
2. discharge subject to conditions
3. detention in the custody of a hospital
Factors - in deciding appropriate measures
- protection of the public
- accused’s mental condition
- his or her integration into society
- accused’s other needs
Standard - the decision must be least onerous and least restrictive to the accused
Related cases
-R v. K (p. 519)
-Rabey v. The Queen (p. 524)
-R v. Parks (p. 544)
R v. K
Facts:
- 1970 Ontario Court of Appeal
- K is 43 yrs old, father of three, good reputation in the community
- had been depressed for months
- wife decided to move to Vancouver with the three children
- he begged wife repeatedly not to leave
- on the day of the incident he went outside to look for his kids
- he met wife outside, hugged her and asked her not to go
- they came in the house
- everything is like a dream, hazy, unclear
- he remember going upstairs, coming down again
- he remember falling down and getting up
- he finds his wife on floor, calls for help
- ambulance driver, doctor, friends all say he was stunned
- had a glazed look on his face, unaware of his surroundings
- he kept calling his wife’s name
- he was unresponsive
- he was escorted to the couch, but fell on the way, his balance being off
Issues:
- was there evidence to support automatism
Ratio:
- acquitted
Rabey v. The Queen
Facts:
- Supreme Court, 1980
- Rabey was infatuate with a girl in his class
- they had a friendly relationship
- she did not feel the same way about him
- he found a letter in her note book
- he took it and read it
- it said that she did not like him and that he was a “nothing” compared to other males she found attractive
- he took the letter home and brooded over it all night
- the next day he asked her to watch a squash game, but there was no game
- they left and Rabey asked her what she thought of Gord
- she said that he was just a friend
- he then asked what she thought of him
- she said that he was also just a friend
- at this point he struck her in the head with a cloth wrapped rock he had taken from the geology lab, and then strangled her, yelling, “you bitch”
- he does not kill her
- Rabey charged with bodily harm with intent to wound
Expert Evidence - psychiatrist testifies that he was in a “dissociative state”
- his actions were involuntary
- Rabey testifies that he can not really remember
- happened “like a flash”
Trial - acquitted
- the “psychological blow” was an externally originating cause of the dissociative state
- non-insane automatism
- crown appeals
Court of Appeal - overturned - new trial ordered
- not automatism - insane, should be committed
- defence appeals
Supreme Court
Issues:
- should Rabey be detained as an insane person
Ratio:
- appeal dismissed
- court disagreed with the trial judge’s decision that the letter was insulting enough to be a “psychological blow,” and cause a dissociative state
- ordinary stresses and disappointments in life do not constitute an external cause explaining a malfunction of the mind
- the dissociative state was caused internally, Rabey was insane
Overhead
R v. Parks
Facts:
- Supreme Court, 1992
- article handout
Trial - acquitted
- crown appeals
Court of Appeal - appeal dismissed
- crown appeals
Supreme Court
Issues:
- is sleepwalking automatism or mental disorder (sane or insane)
Ratio:
- appeal dismissed
- causes of actions were external
- although R v. Rabey case suggests that normal everyday stresses are not external factors, this is different when one is sleeping and the mind is not counter these tresses with the conscious mind
- it is not clear whether or not there is a likelihood of recurrence
- somnambulism has been recognized for a century
- it is unlikely that recognizing somnambulism as a form of automatism will open the floodgates to a cascade of sleepwalking defence claims