CASE: R. v. Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63

LOCATION:

R. v. Daviault

CASE RELATES TO:

Charter s.7 – Fundamental justice

Criminal Code s.33.1 – Self-induced intoxication

Common Law Defence of intoxication – whether allowed or not – mens rea?

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The complainant, a 65-year-old woman who was partially paralysed and thus confined to a wheelchair, was sexually assaulted by the accused. The complainant subsequently discovered the accused’s bottle of brandy was empty after the assault. An expert witness for the defence testified that an individual with the blood-alcohol ratio the accused would have had might suffer a blackout. In such a state the individual loses contact with reality and the brain is temporarily dissociated from normal functioning. The trial judge found as a fact that the accused had committed the offence, but acquitted him because he had a reasonable doubt about whether the accused had possessed the minimal intent necessary to commit the offence of sexual assault. The Court of Appeal allowed the Crown's appeal and ordered a verdict of guilty. It held that the defence of self-induced intoxication resulting in a state equal to automatism or insanity is not available as a defence to a general intent offence. The accused appealed.

HELD:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial.

REASONING AND LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE:

The Supreme Court ruled that:

“The actus reus requires that the prohibited criminal act be performed voluntarily as a willed act. A person in a state of [a mental disorder like] automatism cannot perform a voluntary willed act, and someone in an extreme state of intoxication [just like] automatism must also be deprived of that ability. It would equally infringe s. 7 of the Charter if an accused who was not acting voluntarily could be convicted of a criminal offence. Here again the voluntary act of becoming intoxicated cannot be substituted for the voluntary action involved in sexual assault. To convict in the face of such a fundamental denial of natural justice could not be justified under s. 1 of the Charter.”

NOTE: What makes this case significant for use by the Crown is that although the Court ruled that intoxication could be used as a defence in this case – and granted a new trial – Parliament quickly responded and amended the Criminal Code with section 33.1. This section forbids the use of intoxication as a defence to any crime that “interferes with the bodily integrity of a victim” (ie: assault, sexual assault, etc.).