The Supreme Court restores an Alberta man’s acquittal for attacking a woman while in a state of automatism

On January 12, 2018, Matthew Brown attended a party in Calgary, Alberta, where he consumed wine and ingested "magic mushrooms" containing the illegal drug psilocybin, known for producing hallucinations. As a result of the psilocybin's effects, Mr. Brown lost touch with reality, left the party, and physically assaulted a woman in a nearby residence, causing lasting injuries to her. Brown later broke into another house, prompting the residents to alert the authorities. Brown claimed to have no recollection of the events that occurred during his intoxicated state.

Facing charges of aggravated assault, breaking and entering, and property damage, Brown pleaded not guilty, citing "automatism" as his defense. Automatism refers to a situation where someone claims to have lost complete control of themselves due to intoxication or impairment.

However, the Crown argued that Brown could not use automatism as a defense, as section 33.1 of the Criminal Code explicitly prohibits automatism as a defense for offenses involving assault or interference with another person's bodily integrity.

Brown contended that section 33.1 violated his rights under sections 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Section 7 protects everyone's right to life, liberty, and security of the person, while section 11(d) ensures the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. During his trial, Brown was acquitted, and the judge agreed with his argument. The Crown appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which upheld Brown's conviction. Subsequently, Brown appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal.

The Supreme Court reviewed this case in conjunction with R. v. Sullivan, and both decisions were issued simultaneously.

According to Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is therefore unconstitutional. The Court argued that section 33.1 infringes section 11(d) by potentially misinterpreting someone's desire to become intoxicated as a desire to commit a violent crime. Moreover, it directly contradicts section 7, as the prosecution is not required to prove that the activity was voluntary or that the individual intended to commit the crime.

The Court highlighted that convicting someone for actions committed while in a state of automatism goes against the principles of fundamental justice. Canada's criminal justice system relies on the concept of personal responsibility, necessitating both a guilty action and a guilty mind to find someone guilty of a crime. In a state of automatism, neither of these elements is present.

The Court suggested that Parliament could enact new legislation to address cases involving extreme intoxication and violence. The Court emphasized the importance of protecting victims of violent crimes, particularly vulnerable individuals such as women and children, in light of their equality and dignity interests in situations involving drunken sexual and domestic activities.