Week 11

MENTAL DISORDER
REVIEW & BACKGROUND
Review Corporate crime and convictions Corporations and Charter rights ss 2(b) & 7 o Irwin Toy Liability: absolute, strict, vicarious, primary o Canadian Dredge & Dock Organizational liability & Criminal Code o Westray Law s 241(1) o Negligence 22(1) o Subjective intent 22(2) Current Controversy Who is dangerous? What should be done? o Report aired November 30, 2013 : 16X9 NCR: Not Criminally Responsible. Schizophrenic neighbor believed that her son who had died was reincarnated into 2.5 year-old Zachary. Stabbed him 10 times to release her dead sons spirit. Vince Li stabbed 22 year old passenger sitting beside him on the bus beheaded him John killed a family member. Bipolar disorder for 9 years, says he had a feeling, and 2 minutes later he was murdering. Mental hospitals more like prisons than hospitals Bill C-54 o Not Criminally Responsible Reform Act o Introduced in 2013 -- as a response to Vince Li o Not a law yet History of defence in Canada Background MNaghten Rules o 1843 decision by House of Lords o Guilty by insanity; first time defence is allowed o Delusions; honest belief of being in danger o 1892: Rules adopted in the Criminal Code of Canada o 1992: Becomes Mental Disorder Defence not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD) Criminal Code 16. (1): No person is criminally responsible or an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

Week 11

IMPAIRMENT & PROCEDURE

Unfit To Stand Trial If suffering at time of crime, or during the trial Court motion or application from accused Burden on accused to show that they are unfit to stand trial Must have limited cognitive capacity ability to know the act is wrong; threshold.

R v Whittle [1994] Appellant: Douglas James Whittle Respondent: Crown On appeal from the court of appeal for Ontario Whittle acquitted at trial Court of Appeal ordered new trial
Facts
Dowson murdered in 1989 Whittle admits to murder in 1990 Waives rights to counsel Deemed fit to stand trial Should the principle of awareness of consequences be applied to exclude statements on basis of incapacity? (Ss7/10b) Appeal dismissed Statements were voluntary; Had mental capacity Analytical ability not required operating mind test: shows ability to understand what he says and is told inner compulsion does not displace finding of operating mind No Charter violation

Issue Decision Reason Relevance

Crown must re-visit case every two years. o Either you become fit to proceed with trial, or the case weakens (evidence) and the case is thrown out. Discharge Review boards: Judge + 2 mental health professionals o Decided based on public safety o Seek least restrictive encourage rehabilitation into society Avoid stereotypical assumptions o Only hear about most intense cases creates stigma Possibility of indeterminate detention you can be held for as long as need be infraction on charter rights? o Reason why this defence is not used often Problems With Mental Disorder Defence Accused subject to indeterminate detention o Cannot plead guilty or contest Burden of Proof for NCRMD o Burden on accuse to prove mental disorder

Week 11
o Violation of Charter 11(d) presumption of innocence?

R v Chaulk Appellants: Robert Chaulk; Francis Morissette Respondent: Crown On appeal from Court of appeal for Manitoba C&M convicted at trial Court of Appeal upheld conviction
Facts Issue
C&M robbed house and murdered occupant Claimed insanity at trial Does CC s 16(4) infringe Charter s 11(d) ? 16(4): Everyone shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and to have been sane o has since been amended. 11: any person charged with an offence has the right o d: to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal Appeal allowed; new trial ordered CC 16(4) infringes Charter 11(d): should not be convicted when there is a reasonable doubt 16(4) is a reasonable limit Sanity essential for guilt Onus not on Crown to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt Accused being required to prove insanity on balance of probabilities permits conviction in spite of reasonable doubt.

Decision Reason Relevance

DEFINING MENTAL DISORDER

What is ta Disease of the Mind? Medical developments Nature vs. Nurture (External vs. Internal) Possibility of recurrence o Ongoing threat to public safety o #1 factor in policy decisions

R v Stone Cross-Appeal On appeal from court of appeal for BC Found guilty of manslaughter at trial Court of appeal upheld conviction, dismissed Crowns appeal of sentence
Facts
Fight with wife in truck Stone felt whooshing sensation Came to find wife dead and was holding knife Put wife in tool box, sold truck, flew to Mexico Remembered stabbing wife, returned to Canada and confessed to stabbing 47 times Should defence of sane automatism have been left to

Issue

Week 11
jury Both appeals dismissed Jury decides if disease of mind Is present. If it is, then CC s16 applies If no, defence of sane automatism left to jury o Jury then decides if accused acted involuntarily 2 steps: o 1:Accused proves NCR o 2: judge decides if there is disease of mind. If not, then question re voluntariness put to jury

Decision Reason

Relevance

Cooper Definition 1979: Supreme Court of Canada decision Disease of mind includes all mental disorders o Fetal alcohol disorder o Mental disability Transitory, disassociative states o Hysteria, concussion, trauma o Unlikely to reoccur Some transitory states are not recognized o Intoxication (unless not self induced) o If caused by drugs (unless permanent from chronic use diminished capacity overall) o Sleep walking

R v Parks Appellant: Crown Respondent: Kenneth James Parks On appeal from Court of Appeal for Ontario Acquitted at trial Court of appeal upheld acquittal
Facts Issue
Parks drove 23 km to his in-laws Stabbed both of his in-laws, killing mother in-law Charged with first degree murder Should sleepwalking be classified non-insane automatism resulting in an acquittal, or a disease of the mind (insane automatism), leading to not guilty by reason of insanity Appeal dismissed Automatism raises questions of voluntariness of act Involuntary acts can be acquitted Sleep walking is deemed in this instance, non-insane automatism, not guilty by reason of insanity does not apply; if found involuntary, acquittal should stand

Decision Reason Relevance

Branches of NCRMD defence 1. Inability to appreciate o Nature and quality of act 4

Week 11
o Measure or foresee consequences o Mirrors mens rea requirement 2. Capacity to know act is wrong o Morally wrong o Except for psychopath (sociopath) or certain delusions Know it is wrong, but feel that they are above it

RECAP & NEXT CLASS

MNaghten Rules: Early Criteria Unfit to stand trial; levels of incapacity Problems with NCRMD defence Defining mental disorder Policy decisions and public safety Ability to appreciate consequences or know wrong