Drunkenness: Crime and Action Actus Reas Essay

Submitted By ssmith89
Words: 797
Pages: 4

* Drunkenness
Specific intent offences and general intent offences
Automatism
Triggered by
1. Normal states ie sleepwalking
2. External trauma ie blow to the head
3. Involuntary (induced by drugs/alcohol)

Automatism:
Actus rea has to be voluntary
Exercise of accused free fill
Conscious willing of the action
Actus reas: consciously will the actions
Not mens rea
Not conscious- not acting * * R vs Rabey * Defence:
Received emotional blow
Like an external blow
Dissocative state
Effected brains ability to consciously will the action
Crown:
Emotional blows are not the same thing as external blows
The act is voluntary
Courts Decision:
Automatism: transient disturbances of consciousness was the person an automaton? no Actus reas
Dissociative states: cause by a malfunctioning primarily rooted in some weakness of accused is this a disease of the mind? Not Criminally Responsible
Respond in a way others wouldn’t
Does the state of mind put him in a place where he can not weigh his actions?

New Trial (Rabey)
Is Rabey suffering from a disease of the mind?
Section 16
If answer is yes, not criminal responsible because of mental disorder
If answer is no, convict *
Dissociative States
Step 1: is it a disease of the mind?
Step 2: did the disease of the mind make it impossible to appreciate nature and quality of actions
Step 3: not able to appreciate convict.

We need to separate these two.
Transient: asking whether person had voluntary actions
Responsible for the things you decide to do

Involuntary:
Involuntarily impaired= automaton= no Actus rea= acquit
Voluntary impaired= not automaton= has Actus rea= convict
Incases of extreme intoxication where person is in state of automatism, no a/r = acquit
R Vs King (1962 SCC)
Getting tooth pulled
Given sodium pentathlon
Leaves, get in his car and crash into car in front of him
Charged with impaired driving
Trial court acquits him, goes to supreme court
Involuntary- drug interference with ability to choose

R Vs Daviault (1994 SCC)
Alcoholic, goes to the bar, has 7-8 beer
Wife ask him to drop off brandy at friends house
Pours some brandy at friends house
Lady(friend) falls asleep in wheelchair
Daviault finish off bottle of brandy at 3 am
Brings friend into room and sexually assaults her
Suffers from alcohol induced blackout blackout: brain is incapable of functioning and there is not voluntary control of actions defence: too drunk to commit Actus rea, involuntary because of alcohol= automaton consumed so much alcohol his actions are dissociated form brain acquitted after this parliament passes a new bill

section 7: liberty- prove offender justice includes notions of m/r and a/r not willing to stray from these principles because of liberal principles principles of m/r and a/r because they go to heart of criminal justice system part of the brain to make choices, not functioning

Impaired driving
Actus Reas:
Operating a motor vehicle
While ability to drive is impaired by drugs or alcohol
Mens Rea:…