Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny199r
I've worked on cases similar to this one.
The media and the public are not understanding the basis and future application of this decision.
In order for this defence to succeed, an accused needs to doctor to state that they were in a state of automatism. That is a high, high bar which will disqualify 99.99% of accused people.
Next there is the issue of foreseeability. I don't think this defence is going to be available for a meth addict who gets violent all the time on meth. The cases that the SCC and ONCA have applied it to are mushrooms and anti smoking medication, where the effects weren't really forseeable.
The SCC stated in their decision that parliament needs different legislation to address this issue while not violating an accused's charter rights. I believe parliament will respond quickly with new legislation.
All of the social media outrage and other uninformed, bad takes are frustrating for someone in the criminal law world. The floodgates have not opened.
|
Rare and difficult defenses like this is tend to end up being mostly available for those who can afford a significantly above average legal team, or who are otherwise sympathetic in the eyes of the court.
Neither of which makes for good legal custom.