The Supreme Court of Canada rules that being drunk is a defense for sexual assault and murder

Sexual assault suspects can use being extremely drunk as a defence, Canada’s top court has said in a bombshell ruling.

The Supreme Court today said defendants charged with violent crimes can raise self-induced extreme intoxication as a defence.

He concluded that a law passed by Parliament in 1995 banning the defense was unconstitutional and violated the country’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Judges ruled on Friday on three cases – two of which were acquitted and one was retried – for crimes committed while intoxicated.

The decision struck down federal law that had been ardently supported by women’s rights groups.

Supreme Court Justice Nicholas Kasirer said: “Its impact on the principles of fundamental justice is disproportionate to its overall public benefits. It must therefore be declared unconstitutional and of no effect.

He had taken about 2.5 grams of magic mushrooms and drank about 12-14 ounces of vodka as well as a few beers before the incident. Pictured: His hand after the attack

As a 19-year-old student in 2015, Thomas Chan took magic mushrooms before stabbing his father to death and injuring his partner in Peterborough, Ontario.

At issue was whether defendants charged with a violent crime in criminal court can raise extreme intoxication known as “non-mental disorder automatism” as a defence.

They can claim that their actions were involuntary due to the use of drugs or alcohol and therefore cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions.

The court said it is the law in Canada that intoxication unless automatism is no defense for the kind of violent crime at issue.

Canadian courts are divided on the issue, while women’s advocacy groups have argued the law is necessary to protect women and children.

Four in five victims of domestic violence were women, and they were five times more likely to experience a sexual assault in 2019, according to government data.

In 1994, the court ruled in favor of an extreme intoxication defense by a suspect accused of sexually assaulting a woman in a wheelchair while intoxicated.

In response to the ruling, the Parliament of Canada passed legislation prohibiting defendants from using extreme intoxication as a defense in violent crime cases.

The court today reinstated the acquittal of a man who attacked a teacher with a broomstick after he broke into her home while she was naked and stoned with mushrooms.

Calgary’s Matthew Brown has been charged with breaking and entering and aggravated assault after the attack on Janet Hamnett left his hands broken in 2018.

He had taken about 2.5 grams of magic mushrooms and drank about 12-14 ounces of vodka as well as a few beers before the incident.

Hamnett said Radio Canada: ‘Although I am very disappointed with this decision, it is not about me at this stage.

“What is most important to consider is that this is having a negative impact on victims of aggravated assault across Canada – some of whom are no longer with us because they died from their attacks. .”

Brown’s case was one of three involving the defense of extreme intoxication heard in the Supreme Court on Friday, with Thomas Chan and David Sullivan also heard.

In 2015, while a 19-year-old student, Chan took magic mushrooms before stabbing her father to death and injuring his partner in Peterborough, Ontario.

Meanwhile, in 2013, Sullivan, from Whitby, attempted suicide by taking Wellbutrin but stabbed his mother, who later died of an unrelated heart attack, as he believed she was an alien.

They were both found guilty, but the Ontario Court of Appeal overturned the decision – the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The court today upheld Sullivan’s acquittal and ordered a new trial for Chan.

Brown’s case was one of three involving the defense of extreme intoxication heard in the Supreme Court on Friday, with Thomas Chan and David Sullivan also heard. Pictured: Hamnett

Judge Nicholas Kasirer said the Criminal Code preventing the defense of automatism violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

He said an intent to get drunk was not an intent to commit an offense and the Crown had to prove the person meant the attack.

The court urged parliament to pass legislation to help victims of crimes committed by severely intoxicated people.

He said that “the protection of victims of violent crime – particularly in light of the interests of equality and dignity of women and children vulnerable to intoxicated sexual and domestic acts – is an urgent and substantial social objective. “.