This appeal concerns the intractable problem of distinguishing between insane and non-insane automatism.
RULING
Any malfunctioning of the mind, or mental disorder having its source primarily in some subjective condition or weakness internal to the A (whether fully understood or not), may be a "disease of the mind" if it prevents the A from knowing what he is doing, but transient disturbances of consciousness due to certain specific external factors are not a disease of the mind.
RATIO
What mental states or conditions constitute "disease of the mind" is a question of law for the Judge.
R v PARKS [1990] SCC
FACTS
Parks attacked his parents-in-law when he was sleepwalking. He drove 23 kilometers to their house when he was sleepwalking and stabbed them in their sleep with a kitchen knife. His mother-in-law died, and his father-in-law was seriously injured. He did not remember any of the actions and there was no reasonable motive for the murder. Parks did not have any mental conditions, although several members of his family had sleep problems. Parks had been working long hours at work and had recently been charged with a theft from his employer. He was acquitted both at trial and at the Court of Appeal.
RULING
Held for the D – evidence showed he was sleepwalking at the time of the attack, that sleepwalking is not a neurological disorder, and that there is no medical treatment for sleepwalking aside from good health.
In determining whether or not automatism springs from a disease of the mind one should look to determine if it is caused by internal (in the mind) or external factors. One should also consider whether the condition is continuing. Although these are not determinative, a finding that automatism is internal and continuing suggests a disease of the mind. In this case there was no evidence of a recurrence of sleepwalking causing a similar outcome.
There is also non-insane automatism, which is where the automatism is caused by external factors, it is not continual, and is not linked to any disease of the mind. This applies as a complete defence resulting in the disposition of an acquittal. Although some critics are against applying this defence to sleepwalking, La Forest states that it cannot lead to an opening of the floodgates because it is so rare, and that it must be done to uphold the principles of voluntariness required for a conviction.
RATIO
Automatism works as a defence and results in an absolute acquittal.
Once the defendant raises automatism as a defence the burden is on the Crown to prove voluntariness, or to prove insane automatism which results in a non-criminal responsibility verdict but may result in an alternative disposition under s 672.54.
R v STONE [1999] SCC
FACTS
Stone was driving to see his two sons from a previous marriage with his wife. She did not want him to see them and as a result of her reticence he was only able to visit with them for 15 minutes. On the drive back she continued to berate him, telling him he was a loser, that he was terrible in bed, that he had a small penis, and that she was going to go to the police with trumped up assault charges. He pulled the car over and put his head down. He testified that he blacked out and felt a "woosh" go through his body. When he came to he had stabbed her 47 times with a hunting knife that he kept in the car. He hid her body in his truck's tool chest, picked up a six pack, drove home, left a note for his daughter, and took off to Mexico. After a few weeks in Mexico he decided to return to Canada and turn himself in. In his defence, Stone pleaded insane automatism, non-insane automatism, lack of intent, and in the alternative, provocation. The judge allowed for a defence of insane automatism which was presented to the jury. The jury convicted him of manslaughter and sentenced him to seven years. The verdict was upheld by the CA.
RULING
Insane automatismresults from a disease of the mind, and is completely covered by s.16. If it is successfully proven then a special verdict will be entered. On the other hand, non-insane automatismdoes not stem from a disease of the mind and, if successful, results in an acquittal of the defendant.
The court then sets out the test for establishing automatism. First, the accused needs to establish a proper basis for the defence of automatism on a balance of probabilities. This burden shift violates s 11(d) of the Charter, but is saved by s 1. In law, there is a presumption of voluntariness. In order to establish this burden the accused must give expert evidence to go along with their claim.
If this burden is met, the judge must then decide whether mental disorder or non-mental disorder automatism should be left to the jury. The judge must decide whether there is a "disease of the mind" present. If one is present, then a special verdict will be entered as per s 16. If none is present, then only the defence of non-disorder automatism can be left to the jury.
RATIO
Test for defence of automatism has two steps:
The A must establish, on BOP, that there is sufficient evidence to make the defence operate. In order to do this the accused must have expert evidence to go along with his or her testimony. If not, the defence fails.
The judge must decide if there is a disease of the mind. If there is, then a special verdict is entered and normal s 16 procedures are followed. If there is not, then the question must be left to the jury if the A acted involuntarily. If he did, then he is acquitted.
