Class Notes (904,972)
CA (538,335)
UTSG (45,721)
WDW (315)
WDW101Y1 (300)
Lecture

Lecture 5

4 Pages
72 Views

Department
Woodsworth College Courses
Course Code
WDW101Y1
Professor
David Davies

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
WDW225 October 21, 2010 Actus Reus Part Three Lecture 5
Automatism
R. v. Parks
Facts: drove 23km to his in-laws house, attacked and killed his mother-in-law, seriously injured his father-
in-law, charged with murder and attempted murder; evidence established he was sleep-walking at the
time and that people who are sleepwalking cannot think, reflect or perform voluntary acts
ISSUE: should the jury have been left to decide between insane and non-insane automatism?
ANSWER: there was no evidence that condition was the product of a disease of the mind; only non-insane
automatism was available
SCC confirmed that voluntariness is part of the AR - burden on the Crown to prove
Defining a disease of the mind
a)Consider medical evidence
b)Legal/policy considerations?
-internal vs. external causes
-continuing danger
-risk of occurrence
R. v. Stone (1999, S.C.C)
Stabbed his wife 47 times; she insulted him, he felt a woosh and when he focused again, she had been
stabbed
Two step approach:
1) Did the accused act involuntarily?
-burden on the accused (balance of probabilities)
2) Is it insane or non-insane automatism?
-presumption that it is a disease of the mind (big change from Parks and Rabey)
-holistic test: does society require ongoing protection from the accused? (internal/external, continuing
anger, policy considerations, reasonableness of response)
R. v. Luedecke (2008, Ont. C.A)
FACTS: admitted that he had non-consensual sex with the complainant; claimed he was asleep at the
time, had a history of engaging in sexual activity while asleep
ISSUES: was his conduct involuntary? If so, was it the produce of a mental disorder/disease of the mind?
Doherty J.A.:
The respondent personifies one of the most difficult problems encountered in the criminal law. As
a result of his parasomnia, he did a terrible thing, he sexually assaulted a defenceless, young victim. The
reason for his conduct automatism brought on by parasomnia renders his actions non-culpable in the
eyes of the criminal law. That very same explanation, however, makes his behaviour potentially
dangerous and raises legitimate public safety concerns. An outright acquittal reflects the non-culpable
nature of the conduct but does nothing to address the potential danger posed by the respondents
condition.
-conduct was involuntary
-community still has an interest in assessing and managing dangerousness
-categorization as mentally ill not the issue
-Parks does not apply after Stone
-presumed to be a disease of the mind
-focus on risk of recurrence
-defining something as a disease of the mind is largely a policy consideration
Omissions
www.notesolution.com

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
WDW225 October 21, 2010 Actus Reus Part Three Lecture 5 Automatism R. v. Parks Facts: drove 23km to his in-laws house, attacked and killed his mother-in-law, seriously injured his father- in-law, charged with murder and attempted murder; evidence established he was sleep-walking at the time and that people who are sleepwalking cannot think, reflect or perform voluntary acts ISSUE: should the jury have been left to decide between insane and non-insane automatism? ANSWER: there was no evidence that condition was the product of a disease of the mind; only non-insane automatism was available SCC confirmed that voluntariness is part of the AR - burden on the Crown to prove Defining a disease of the mind a) Consider medical evidence b) Legalpolicy considerations? -internal vs. external causes -continuing danger -risk of occurrence R. v. Stone (1999, S.C.C) Stabbed his wife 47 times; she insulted him, he felt a woosh and when he focused again, she had been stabbed Two step approach: 1) Did the accused act involuntarily? -burden on the accused (balance of probabilities) 2) Is it insane or non-insane automatism? -presumption that it is a disease of the mind (big change from Parks and Rabey) -holistic test: does society require ongoing protection from the accused? (internalexternal, continuing anger, policy considerations, reasonableness of response) R. v. Luedecke (2008, Ont. C.A) FACTS: admitted that he had non-consensual sex with the complainant; claimed he was asleep at the time, had a history of engaging in sexual activity while asleep ISSUES: was his conduct involuntary? If so, was it the produce of a mental disorderdisease of the mind? Doherty J.A.: The respondent personifies one of the most difficult problems encountered in the criminal law. As a result of his parasomnia, he did a terrible thing, he sexually assaulted a defenceless, young victim. The reason for his conduct automatism brought on by parasomnia renders his actions non-culpable in the eyes of the criminal law. That very same explanation, however, makes his behaviour potentially dangerous and raises legitimate public safety concerns. An outright acquittal reflects the non-culpable nature of the conduct but does nothing to address the potential danger posed by the respondents condition. -conduct was involuntary -community still has an interest in assessing and managing dangerousness -categorization as mentally ill not the issue -Parks does not apply after Stone -presumed to be a disease of the mind -focus on risk of recurrence -defining something as a disease of the mind is largely a policy consideration Omissions www.notesolution.com
More Less
Unlock Document


Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit