Experts want the legislator to react quickly to a recent Supreme Court decision which now ensures, for example, that an individual accused of sexual assault can be declared not criminally responsible if he was in a state of intoxication extreme at the time of the crime.
On May 13, the highest court in the country struck down section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, ruling that it was unconstitutional. This article made it possible to convict an individual accused of a violent crime if he was in a state of automatism, a state of intoxication such as having made him lose touch with reality.
“In Canada, according to the principles of fundamental justice, two elements are required for a person to be declared guilty of a crime, namely (1) a guilty act and (2) a guilty intention, recalled the Supreme Court in its decision. None of these elements are present when a person is in a state of automatism.
The court also noted that “Parliament could enact new legislation to hold accountable severely intoxicated people who commit violent crimes”, and that “the protection of victims of violent crime…is an urgent social objective and real”.
The ball is therefore in Parliament’s court.
A professor of criminal law at Laval University, Pierre Rainville, expects a quick response.
“It is clearly desirable,” he told us in an interview, adding that there are means that are listed in the decision for constitutional intervention.
“For example, it is possible to create an offense of dangerous intoxication in a case where someone is intoxicated so acutely that he is no longer aware of what he is doing. There is also the possibility of creating a new offense of criminal negligence which results from the excessive use of narcotics or alcohol.
Despite everything, Pierre Rainville believes that there is no reason to worry, since the defense of automatism is rare.
But Marc Bellemare, lawyer and former Minister of Justice of Quebec, is worried.
“In Quebec, we are already one of the provinces with the highest rate of not criminally responsible,” he said, adding that “it will be a war of experts to determine if the accused could be reasonably drunk enough. not to understand what he was doing”. “Lawyers are going to use this judgment thoroughly.”
Me Bellemare also deplores the possible social consequences until Parliament reacts.
“We are going to have victims like this violently assaulted woman who has permanent scars, argues the lawyer, referring to the Alberta case that led the Supreme Court to make the decision it made. She finds herself facing a guy acquitted, because he was so drunk that he did not understand what he was doing. It’s very damned.”
Asked about this decision and the pressure it puts on the legislator, the federal Minister of Justice, David Lametti, said he understood “the concerns of Canadians and the need to act quickly […]”.
“I am carefully studying the decision to determine its effect on victims as well as on the criminal law,” he said, adding that “the Supreme Court’s decision does not apply to the vast majority of cases. involving a person who commits a criminal offense while intoxicated”.
