Article Figures & Data
Tables
- Table 1
Summary of Key Points Regarding Voluntariness, Intent, and Automatism in Canadian Law
Legal Source and Topics Key Points R v. Rabey (1980) Definition of automatism Unconscious, involuntary behavior The state of a person who is not conscious of what he is doing Insane automatism Malfunctioning of the mind arising from a cause internal to the accused, e.g., psychological makeup, emotional makeup, organic pathology Non-insane automatism Transient effect caused by an external factor, e.g. a blow to the head, exposure to toxic fumes R v. Parks (1992) Insane automatism Is a disease of the mind Positive finding results in an NCR-MD Non-insane automatism Is not a disease of the mind Positive finding results in acquittal Burden of proof Evidence supporting that the condition exists resides with the defense Evidence supporting that voluntariness was present at the time of the offense resides with the Crown R v. Daviault (1994) Self-induced intoxication The Leary Rule; mens rea of a general intent offense cannot be negated by self-induced intoxication, offends the presumption of innocence under the Charter Wrongful intention to become dangerously drunk cannot substitute for the intention to commit a crime of sexual assault Automatism may apply in rare cases of extreme intoxication Bill C-72/s. 33.1 (1995) Voluntary intoxication Self-intoxication is excluded as a defense for general intent in offenses related to bodily integrity R v. Stone (1999) Two-step process for determination First step is to determine existence of automatism (that the accused acted in an involuntary manner) Second step is to determine whether the involuntariness is due to a mental disorder or non-mental disorder automatism Factors for consideration Involuntariness Presence of psychiatric illness Severity of triggering stimulus Corroborating evidence of bystanders Corroborating medical history of automatistic-like dissociative states Evidence of motive for the crime Whether the alleged trigger of violence is also the victim Burden of proof The law presumes that people act voluntarily The burden of proof in regarding involuntariness resides with the defense s. 33.1 (1995) Voluntary intoxication Self-intoxication is excluded as a defense for general intent in offenses related to bodily integrity R v. Sullivan (2020) Extreme intoxication Extreme intoxication is akin to automatism s. 33.1 struck down Struck down because: Breach of the principle of voluntariness of an act Impinges upon presumption of innocence Does not reach minimum standard of penal neglience Not a reasonable limit as can be justified in society (Adapted from Glancy and Regehr29).
Areas of Assessment Elements to Assess Presence of automatistic state Corroborating witnesses Corroborating history of dissociative states Consideration of possible malingering Nature of the automatistic state (disease of the mind?) Presence of psychiatric illness Presence of medical illness Presence of sleep disorder Effects of alcohol/drugs Medical and psychiatric history Family history Laboratory results Precipitant or trigger Severity of the triggering event Source (did the eventual victim trigger the event?) Context (accused’s interpretation of the trigger) Priming or vulnerability factors Substance use Life stressors Sleep deprivation Amnesia Presence and duration Cause: organic, functional, alcohol blackout, conscious attempt to distort Incomprehension and possible horror on return to awareness Motive Possible gains Link between the victim and the trigger Specific concerns in sleep-related violence History of sleepwalking or other parasomnias Evidence the individual was asleep prior to the offense Duration of sleep Concurrent factors (fatigue, drugs, alcohol) Source of arousal (touch, noise) Proximity of offense to arousal Specific concerns in severe intoxication and substance-induced psychosis No independent psychotic disorder Symptoms did not precede substance use Symptoms do not persist after the cessation of acute withdrawal or severe intoxication Disturbance does not occur exclusively during the course of a delirium Risk of recurrence Unique nature of the trigger Treatment for disorder leading to automatism (Adapted from Glancy and Regehr29).
