Lecture 5

4 Pages
Unlock Document

University of Toronto St. George
Woodsworth College Courses
David Davies

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

Related notes for WDW101Y1

Log In


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


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.