Extreme intoxication should not be a legal excuse, argues Ottawa

Extreme intoxication by drugs and alcohol is not a valid legal defense unless it is triggered inadvertently, argues the government of Justin Trudeau. The latter responds with a bill to a contrary decision rendered by the Supreme Court five weeks ago.

The nation’s highest court recently ruled that a person who commits a crime in “an extreme state of intoxication” to the point where they have lost control of themselves can be exempt from criminal liability. In rendering his decision, Judge Nicholas Kasirer noted that the laws on which this judgment was based could be unconstitutional. He had urged Parliament to consider new legislation to find alternatives “fairer to the accused” while allowing “to achieve some of [ses] objectives, if not all” in terms of protecting victims.

Justin Trudeau’s government has responded to this call. Justice Minister David Lametti introduced Bill C-28 on Friday to “fill that void,” he said at a press conference. If this bill is passed, taking drugs and alcohol will now be considered “criminal negligence”.

Thus, the bill mentions that the courts will have to take into account “the objective foreseeability of the risk that the consumption of intoxicating substances may cause extreme intoxication and cause the person to cause harm to others”, as well as “what the no one has done in order to avoid this risk”.

“During the trial, it will be up to the person who faces the offenses to provide proof, probably with experts, that he had completed a state of extreme intoxication akin to automatism. We have to prove it, make it probable, with the experts. […] Someone taking prescription drugs and having a completely unforeseen reaction… Maybe,” the minister gave as an example.

He said he hopes the House of Commons will pass C-28 next week, before the end of the parliament session. “There is a gap, a small gap” with the opposition parties, he noted. “We hope to have a consensus sooner rather than later. »

Judge Nicholas Kasirer had written that the section as drafted violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms because a person’s decision to become drunk does not mean that he intended to commit an offense with violence. He also added that this means that an accused could be found guilty without the prosecution having had to demonstrate that he intended to commit the offense he is facing.

“The protection of victims of violent crimes — especially in light of the right to equality and dignity of women and children who are at risk of sexual and domestic violence at the hands of intoxicated persons — constitutes a social objective urgent and real”, could we read in the judgment which was rendered unanimously.

With The Canadian Press

To see in video


source site-40

Latest