Mr review 6 ignorance of law 6

R v Parks 1992 SCC [Sleep walking is valid for defence of automatism]

Issue: Is sleep walking automatism?

Decision: yes, decision dismissed. Victim acquitted.

Reasons: Lamer

• 
  The respondent was sleepwalking at the time of the incident, sleep walking is not a neurological, psychiatric or other illness: It is a sleep disorder, there is no medical treatment apart from good health
  

• 
  Only those who act voluntarily with the requisite intent to commit and offence should be punished by criminal sanction. The concerns of those who reject these underlying values of our system must be discounted.
  

R v Stone 1999 SCC p 818 [Disease of Mind Inquiry Holistic Approach; how to determine non-mental automatism = focus on causes of automatism, continuing danger, other policy concerns; Judge choses what defences left with jury]

Issue: How can accused demonstrate that mere words caused him to enter an automatistic state such that his actions were involuntary and not subject to criminal sanction?

• 
  Automatism (Rabey): term used to describe unconscious, involuntary behaviuor, 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.
  
• 
  Instead of “unconscious” use “state of impaired consciousness, in which an individual, though capable of action, has no voluntary control over that action.
  
• 
  A claim of non-insane automatism entitles accused to an acquittal.
  
• 
  A claim of insane automatism: subsumed under the defence of insanity leading to the special verdict of not guilty on account of insanity, whereas automatism not resulting from disease of the mind leads to an absolute acquittal
  
  • 
    Successful claims of insane automatism trigger s 16 and result in verdict of NCRMD
    
• 
  Burden of Proof: Must be on the defence to prove involuntariness on a balance of probabilities to the trier of fact (Reverse onus is justified)
  
• 
  It is for the TJ to determine the mental conditions which are included in “disease of the mind” and whether there is any evidence that the A suffered from abnormal mental conditions comprehended by that term
  
• 
  New approach to disease of the mind inquiry
  
  • 
    Informed by internal cause theory, continuing danger theory and policy concerns raised in this Court’s decisions in Rabey and Parks
    
  • 
    Internal Cause Theory:
    
    • 
      Undertaking comparison to determine whether normal person might have reacted to trigger by entering automatistic state. Evidence of an extremely shocking trigger necessary.
      
    • 
      Not subjective – contextual objective test
      
    • 
      Impact of objective comparison is limited, only as analytical tool, not definitive answer
      
  • 
    Continuing Danger Theory
    
    • 
      Need to ensure public safety
      
    • 
      Any condition which is likely to present a recurring danger to the public should be treated as disease of the mind
      
    • 
      Internal Cause and Continuing Danger are factors to determine “disease of the mind”
      
  • 
    Other Policy Factors
    
    • 
      Some cases where both above factors are inconclusive
      
    • 
      If so, holistic approach to disease of mind must permit judges to consider policy concerns which underlie the inquiry
      
    • 
      Policy concerns assist TJ in answering the fundamental question of mixed law and fact which is at the centre of the disease of the mind inquiry: whether society requires protection from the accused, and whether the accused should be subject to evaluation under the regime contained in part XX.1 of the Code
      
• 
  Application to present Case:
  
  • 
    Approach taken by TJ did not impair A’s position
    
  • 
    First stage: Whether A had established proper foundation for defence of automatism, TJ stated there must be unconsciousness throughout commission of crime (
    
  • 
    Second: Disease of mind stage: evidence raised only Words of victim as cause of automatism. Based on this evidence and precedent of similar case, TJ found that only mental disorder automatism should be left with jury.
    
    • 
      Should have used holistic approach
      
    • 
      However holistic approach supports Tjs finding
      

• 
  Should not reverse burden of proof, should be left to parliament
  
• 
  A argues that he was entitled to have issue of voluntariness put to jury.
  
• 
  He was found to be sane, and convicted of manslaughter
  
• 
  A argues that the act of killing, while not the product of a mentally disordered mind, was nevertheless involuntary
  
• 
  He was entitled to jury’s verdict on whether or not his conduct, though sane, was involuntary
  
• 
  Introduction of objective person test inputs objective fault standard into the BoF
  

• 
  If parks was decided after stone, he would be NCRM of murder
  

• 
  Does not create objective fault standard. Simply asks are you automatic or are you NCRMD. Nothing wrong with looking to reasonable person standard  then must go to NCRMD
  

R v Luedeck 2008 ONCA p 835 [Decision of Stone maybe influenced by Winko, Looking at Automatism post Stone – 2 big changes]

Reasons: (Doherty JA)

• 
  Stone alters approach to automatism in two ways
  
  • 
    1) TJ must begin from premise that the automatism is caused by a disease of the mind and look to evidence to determine whether it convinces him that conditions is not a disease of the mind (contrasts with Parks, where opposite occurred)
    
  • 
    2) Stone accepts multi-factored approach to policy component of characterization set out in parks, it refocuses the continuing danger aspect
    
    • 
      TJ must not limit their inquiry only to the risk of further violence while in automatistic state
      
    • 
      Scholar says: had parks been tried on stone test, only defence left to jury would be mental disorder automatism because his triggers for sleepwalking are likely to reoccur and he may sleepwalk again = danger to public.
      
  • 
    Was stone influenced by WInko (released a week later), which required absolute discharge of anyone found NCRMD unless the court determines that the individual poses a significant threat to public.