Editor's Introduction Self-induced intoxication as a defense in the criminal code of Canada: issues and discussion around Daviault v. R.

Abstract

In the 13 months between September 1994 and September 1995, the legal status of a defense of self-induced intoxication in Canadian criminal law was drastically altered-twice. First, a landmark ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada made it possible for the first time to use the defense of intoxication (under specific circumstances) for crimes of general intent; second, the Government of Canada enacted legislation to restrict use of this defense to crimes involving bodily harm. This issue of Contemporary Drug Problems focuses on the issue of self-induced intoxication as a legal defense for criminal offenses in Canada. The individual papers in this collection describe the Supreme Court decision, the response to this decision by the public and the scientific community, and, ultimately, new legislation enacted by the Canadian Parliament in response. The case in question, Daviault v. R., involved an alleged violent sexual assault. The decision was viewed by some as an abdication of the responsibility of the legal system to punish violent behavior, particularly violence against women. It was also viewed as part of a general failure of governments and public agencies to act to protect society from the harmful consequences of alcohol use. Many voices contributed to the debate and discussion that followed. The discussion also brought to the fore long-standing debates in the areas of law and social science. One is the question of how best to account for self-induced intoxication in assessing the legal requirements of criminal intent. Another is whether the relationship between intoxication with alcohol and aggression is causal. In 1989 a Quebec resident named Henri Daviault was accused of sexually assaulting a 65-year-old woman. In 1991 the trial judge acquitted Mr. Daviault on the grounds that he had reasonable doubt the accused had been capable of forming the minimal mental intent required for the act, given his state of intoxication. Mr. Daviault has stated that he was extremely drunk on the night of the incident, that he had no intention of assaulting the woman and has no memory of the event. In 1993 the decision was overturned by the Quebec Court of Appeal because self-induced intoxication was not allowed by Canadian law as a defense for any crime of general intent, of which sexual assault is one example. Mr. Daviault challenged this exclusion, and in September 1994 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in his favor. There has been a great deal of confusion around the meaning of the September decision. Popular opinion held that the Supreme Court had acquitted the man out of a belief that drunkenness in and of itself can cause, and thereby legally excuse, violent acts, including rape. The decision was seen by some people as evidence of misogyny in the criminal justice system. In fact, however, the case of Daviault v. R. before the Supreme Court did not address guilt or innocence on the original charge of sexual assault. Similarly, the Supreme Court did not question that Mr. Daviault had been extremely intoxicated, but took this as fact. Rather, the court was charged only with considering the question of whether the Court of Appeal had been correct in concluding that Mr. Daviault's intoxication could not be raised in his defense. In effect, the Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Daviault did have the right to raise his self-induced intoxication in his own defense, but only in the exceptional circumstance that the intoxication had resulted in a state of altered consciousness akin to automatism, a disease of the mind that rendered him incapable of voluntarily controlling his actions. The majority decision ruled that he did indeed have the fundamental right to try to demonstrate that he lacked the minimal mental element required for conviction, although it by no means promised he would be successful in doing so. In their writings, the Justices of the Supreme Court concluded that this defense would be raised only in unusual circumstances and would be successful in the rarest of cases. …