CRIMINAL DEFENCES Alibi Automatism Intoxication Defences in General
CRIMINAL DEFENCES Alibi, Automatism, Intoxication
Defences in General Defence lawyers will try to prove at least one of the following three things: 1. Their client did not commit the act – no actus reus 2. Their client lacked criminal intent – no mens rea 3. Their client had a valid reason/excuse for committing the act
The Alibi Defence Alibi – evidence that places the accused at a different place at the time of the crime An alibi must have 3 parts: 1. Statement indicating the accused was somewhere else 2. Explanation of why the accused was there 3. Witnesses that can back up the alibi in court
Automatism Not in the Criminal Code, exists because of common law Based on accused not fulfilling mens rea because they were not in control of their actions Two types based upon whether accused is likely to suffer from condition again, and whether they may be a danger to society in the future
Non-Insane Automatism Sometimes called “temporary insanity” Can be the result of low blood sugar, a physical blow, stroke, sleepwalking, trauma Requires psychological testing in most cases to determine validity of claim In all cases, accused had no intent/awareness of crime
Insane Automatism A person may be found not criminally responsible if: 1. They were suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the crime 2. A mental disorder made them incapable of understanding their act was wrong at the time of the crime Ex: a paranoid schizophrenic may act on their perception that someone is a threat to them when they are not
NCR: Not Criminally Responsible To be held NCR for a crime the following must be proven in court: 1. Does the accused realize they are in court/on trial? 2. Does the accused realize there are consequences from the trial? 3. Is the accused capable of communicating with their lawyer?
Intoxication To use intoxication as a defence, must show the accused did not have mens rea While intoxication may prevent a charge of 2 nd degree murder, the accused may still be charged with manslaughter Changed after R. v Daviault…
Speaking of Which… Let’s read R. v. Daviault on pg. 271! Do questions on the case! Then! R. v. Luedecke! Questions on your own!
- Slides: 9