CASE: R. v. Lavallee [1990]
1 S.C.R. 852
LOCATION:
CASE RELATES
TO:
Criminal Code s.34
Common Law Battered Woman
Syndrome
FACTS OF THE
CASE:
Angelique Lavallee, a
battered woman in a volatile common law relationship, killed her partner late
one night by shooting him in the back of the head as he left her room. The
shooting occurred after an argument where the appellant had been physically
abused and was fearful for her life after being taunted with the threat that
either she kill him or he would get her. She had frequently been a victim of
his physical abuse and had concocted excuses to explain her injuries to medical
staff on those occasions. A medical expert testified that in his opinion the
appellant's shooting of the deceased was the final desperate act of a woman who
sincerely believed that she would be killed that night. In the course of his
testimony, he related many things told to him by the appellant for which there
was no admissible evidence. She did not testify at the trial.
HELD:
The Manitoba Court of
Appeal upheld the conviction, but the Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The
court ruled 7-2 in favour of allowing Battered Woman Syndrome to explain the how
the mental conditions for self-defence (in s.34) were present in this case,
though they would not normally be present if the case involved a non-abused
person.
REASONING AND
LEGAL SIGNIFICANCE:
The justices wrote
that in considering the requirements of section 34, it is important to consider
all of the following for Battered Woman Syndrome:
1. Why did a woman stay in the abusive
relationship,
2. What was the nature and extent of the violence
in the relationship,
3. What was the defendant’s ability to perceive
danger from her abuser, and
4. Whether the accused believed on reasonable
grounds that she could not otherwise preserve herself from death or grievous
bodily harm?
All four of these
things are necessary to satisfy the statutory requirements of section 34
(especially the mental conditions in numbers 2 and 3 below). Once again, the
requirements for s.34(2) are:
1. There is an unlawful assault,
2. You cause harm under the reasonable apprehension that you yourself are in grave danger, and
3. You believe, on reasonable grounds, that there is no other way to defend yourself
but to inflict harm.
R v Malott clarifies these requirements.