Former Mount Royal University student Matthew Brown has been charged with breaking and entering and aggravated assault after a 2018 incident where he attacked Janet Hamnett with a broomstick. The victim had broken bones in his hands.
The case is one of three the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday. All three dealt with the question of whether the defense of extreme intoxication to the point of automatism is available for those who have chosen to use drugs and commit violent acts.
What is automation?
Canadian criminal law describes automatism as a state of mind in which a person finds himself which prevents him from discerning right from wrong whether it is due to mental illness, sleepwalking or involuntary intoxication. by drugs or alcohol. These acts are then described as automatic, because they are animated by a force other than rational consciousness.
The other two cases involve two Ontario men who, after using drugs, stabbed members of their respective families while in a state of psychosis.
Twenty-eight years ago, the Canadian Parliament made amendments to the Criminal Code, prohibiting the use of this defense during voluntary intoxication. This resulted in an article that was not very well written, which led the judges to give different interpretations of it.
University of Calgary law professor Lisa Silver wrote in an article about the three cases.
The court ruled that the section of the Criminal Code prohibiting the use of this defense was unconstitutional.
Although I am very disappointed with this decision, it is not about me at this stage. What is more important is to consider the negative effects on the victims [en général]
reacted, by email, Janet Hamnett.
In its decision, the Supreme Court indicates that the section of the Criminal Code preventing the defense of automatism violates the charter in two ways.
First, an intent to become intoxicated is not an intent to commit a violent offense and, second, an accused can be convicted without the Crown having to prove that the act was intentional.
In its 104-page decision, the court calls on the Canadian Parliament to pass legislation to protect victims of violent crimes committed during extreme intoxication, emphasizing that this is a pressing and substantial social objective.
The Brown Affair
On the evening of January 13, 2018, Matthew Brown, a student athlete, reunited with friends in the community of Springbank Hill in Calgary. They drank alcohol and consumed magic mushrooms.
At around 4 a.m., his friends noticed him standing naked outside the door of the house. He then ran outside and disappeared into the night.
The victim lived alone in a nearby residence. As she got out of bed after being woken up by noise, she came face to face with Matthew Brown who then attacked her with a broomstick.
Suddenly he stopped and left the house. Matthew Brown was found by police inside the home of another neighborhood resident.
Ahead of Matthew Brown’s 2019 trial, a Calgary judge struck down legislation that prevents the use of the extreme intoxication defense to the point of automatism, clearing the way for the defendant’s attorney to argue that his client was incapable of forming the intent required to commit the crimes.
In May 2020, Matthew Brown was acquitted by a Superior Court judge. At the time, it was believed the case was the only one in Canada involving a successful defense of extreme intoxication under the influence of magic mushrooms.
Fourteen months later, the Alberta Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal after ruling that the accused should bear the consequences of his illegal drug use.
The case then went to the Supreme Court of Canada which chose to restore Matthew Brown’s acquittal.
With information from Meghan Grant
Reference-ici.radio-canada.ca