Dissent (Dickson): Mental disorder must be evidenced – s.16(4) presumes sanity expert medical opinion to contrary required Here, finding of NCRMD was wrong – no ongoing psych. disorder, no symptoms, etc Should be a subjective standard, looking at what happened to that specific person on that occasion (the fact that he didn’t respond the way other “normal” people would shouldn’t obscure the fact that he has no disease of the mind) If automatistic conduct is transient & unlikely to recur, and acc’d isn’t a danger to himself or society, then automatism is the right result, not insanity [Dickson doesn’t dispute fact of dissociative state or that there should be an acquittal, he just doesn’t like the mental disorder basis for the decision, since NCRMD meant indefinite confinement] R v Parks, 1992 SCC What is the Sleepwalking is NOT a mental disorder (no proper evidence for this) Facts: Guy has gambling defence for Proper defence is automatism, not insanity, addiction, stressed, insomnia, so he was acquitted history of sleepwalking, gets Lamer: public safety issues here (how to out of bed, drives to in-laws, ensure he won’t do it again? Can we stabs them to death; then supervise him?) drives himself to police station, La Forest: Discusses continuing danger remembers nothing. theory (any condition likely to pose a danger to the public should be treated as Ruling: acquittal NCRMD) and internal cause theory (speaks to the cause – suggests any condition stemming from psychological makeup should result in NCRMD, whereas external cause should result in automatism) Both approaches share common concern of public safety NB: Changes in Luedecke (sleepwalking characterized as a mental disorder) Leading Automatism Cases R v Stone, 1999 SCC Five propositions presented by the Court: Facts: Troubled 1. If impaired consciousness due to DoM, accused must use s.16 marriage, quarrelling NCRMD
Dissent (Dickson): Mental disorder must be evidenced – s.16(4) presumes sanity expert medical opinion to contrary required Here, finding of NCRMD was wrong – no ongoing psych. disorder, no symptoms, etc Should be a subjective standard, looking at what happened to that specific person on that occasion (the fact that he didn’t respond the way other “normal” people would shouldn’t obscure the fact that he has no disease of the mind) If automatistic conduct is transient & unlikely to recur, and acc’d isn’t a danger to himself or society, then automatism is the right result, not insanity [Dickson doesn’t dispute fact of dissociative state or that there should be an acquittal, he just doesn’t like the mental disorder basis for the decision, since NCRMD meant indefinite confinement] R v Parks, 1992 SCC Facts: Guy has gambling addiction, stressed, insomnia, history of sleepwalking, gets out of bed, drives to in-laws, stabs them to death; then drives himself to police station, remembers nothing. Ruling: acquittal What is the proper defence for Sleepwalking is NOT a mental disorder (no evidence for this) Proper defence is automatism, not insanity, so he was acquitted Lamer: public safety issues here (how to ensure he won’t do it again? Can we supervise him?) La Forest: Discusses continuing danger theory (any condition likely to pose a danger to the public should be treated as NCRMD) and internal cause theory (speaks to the cause – suggests any condition stemming from psychological makeup should result in NCRMD, whereas external cause should result in automatism) Both approaches share common concern of public safety NB: Changes in Luedecke (sleepwalking characterized as a mental disorder) Leading Automatism Cases R v Stone, 1999 SCC Facts: Troubled marriage, quarrelling Five propositions presented by the Court: 1. If impaired consciousness due to DoM, accused must use s.16 NCRMD