In the wake of a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision allowing defendants to claim extreme intoxication as a defence in cases involving violent crimes, a Calgary man has been acquitted of his attack of a woman while high on drugs. .Matthew Brown, former student and captain of the men's hockey team at Mount Royal University, broke into the home of Janet Hamnett in 2018 and violently assaulted her while high on magic mushrooms. The assault left Hamnett with broken bones and wounds on both hands. .The original judge overseeing his case, Justice Michele Hollins, ruled in 2020 that evidence supported the argument Brown experienced automatism and was not in control of his actions. .Alberta's Appeal Court in July 2021 reversed the decision and ordered Brown be convicted of break-and-enter and aggravated assault.."Although I am very disappointed with this decision, it is not about me at this stage," said Hamnett in an email regarding two other cases the court ruled on, according to CBC. ."What is most important to consider is this negatively impacts victims of aggravated assault across Canada — some of who are no longer with us because they died as a result of their attacks." .Brown's case, along with two Ontario cases, was before the SCC when it ruled Friday a law added to the Criminal Code in 1985, which prohibited self-induced intoxication to the point of automatism to be used as a defence in cases involving murder, assault or other violent crimes, was unconstitutional..The unanimous decision restored Brown's acquittal along with the acquittal of David Sullivan and ordered a new trial for Thomas Chan..Chan and Sullivan's jointly-heard case from December 2020, claimed the two experienced a psychotic episode after consuming a heavy amount of drugs. During their psychotic episode, they injured and, in Mr. Chan's case, killed members of their family. Chan stabbed his father to death, while Sullivan stabbed his mother leaving her injured. .The decision to strike down the federal law now allows defendants to claim their self-induced intoxication, also referred to as non-mental automatism, should not hold them criminally responsible for acts of violence including murder or sexual assault..In the Friday ruling, the court said its decision to strike down a federal law that prohibited the defence, passed by Parliament in 1985, was unconstitutional and violates Canada's Charter of rights..Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision the Charter was violated in two ways; first, intent to become intoxicated does not equal intent to commit a violent offence and, second, a defendant could be convicted without the Crown proving intent or showing their actions were voluntary. .In the decision, the court calls on Parliament to bring in legislation designed to protect victims of violent crimes committed while a person is extremely intoxicated.
In the wake of a Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) decision allowing defendants to claim extreme intoxication as a defence in cases involving violent crimes, a Calgary man has been acquitted of his attack of a woman while high on drugs. .Matthew Brown, former student and captain of the men's hockey team at Mount Royal University, broke into the home of Janet Hamnett in 2018 and violently assaulted her while high on magic mushrooms. The assault left Hamnett with broken bones and wounds on both hands. .The original judge overseeing his case, Justice Michele Hollins, ruled in 2020 that evidence supported the argument Brown experienced automatism and was not in control of his actions. .Alberta's Appeal Court in July 2021 reversed the decision and ordered Brown be convicted of break-and-enter and aggravated assault.."Although I am very disappointed with this decision, it is not about me at this stage," said Hamnett in an email regarding two other cases the court ruled on, according to CBC. ."What is most important to consider is this negatively impacts victims of aggravated assault across Canada — some of who are no longer with us because they died as a result of their attacks." .Brown's case, along with two Ontario cases, was before the SCC when it ruled Friday a law added to the Criminal Code in 1985, which prohibited self-induced intoxication to the point of automatism to be used as a defence in cases involving murder, assault or other violent crimes, was unconstitutional..The unanimous decision restored Brown's acquittal along with the acquittal of David Sullivan and ordered a new trial for Thomas Chan..Chan and Sullivan's jointly-heard case from December 2020, claimed the two experienced a psychotic episode after consuming a heavy amount of drugs. During their psychotic episode, they injured and, in Mr. Chan's case, killed members of their family. Chan stabbed his father to death, while Sullivan stabbed his mother leaving her injured. .The decision to strike down the federal law now allows defendants to claim their self-induced intoxication, also referred to as non-mental automatism, should not hold them criminally responsible for acts of violence including murder or sexual assault..In the Friday ruling, the court said its decision to strike down a federal law that prohibited the defence, passed by Parliament in 1985, was unconstitutional and violates Canada's Charter of rights..Justice Nicholas Kasirer wrote in the decision the Charter was violated in two ways; first, intent to become intoxicated does not equal intent to commit a violent offence and, second, a defendant could be convicted without the Crown proving intent or showing their actions were voluntary. .In the decision, the court calls on Parliament to bring in legislation designed to protect victims of violent crimes committed while a person is extremely intoxicated.
