Glancy Graham, Patel Kiran
Dr. Glancy is Associate Professor, Director Forensic Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. Dr. Patel is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, and Staff Psychiatrist, Forensic Division of the Complex Care and Recovery Programme at the Centre for Mental Health and Addiction, Toronto, ON, Canada.
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2022 Sep;50(3):450-459. doi: 10.29158/JAAPL.210138-21. Epub 2022 Jun 15.
Automatism has long been a significant topic of discussion between forensic psychiatry and the courts. In a recent case, the Ontario Court of Appeal addressed this concept in the setting of a Canadian law, s. 33.1 of the Criminal Code, that limits the defense of self-induced intoxication for any offense involving violence. The court found that s. 33.1 violated the presumption of innocence and the principles of fundamental justice and could not be saved by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as it was not demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. Therefore, the court declared s. 33.1 to be of no force and effect. In this article, we describe the legal history of automatism in Canadian courts and the reasoning behind this important decision. Finally, we discuss some implications for forensic practice.
自动行为长期以来一直是法医精神病学与法庭之间讨论的重要话题。在最近的一个案例中，安大略省上诉法院在加拿大《刑法》第33.1条的背景下探讨了这一概念，该条款限制了对任何涉及暴力犯罪的自我诱发醉酒抗辩。法院认定，第33.1条违反了无罪推定原则和基本司法原则，且不能通过《加拿大权利和自由宪章》予以挽救，因为在自由和民主的社会中它并非明显合理。因此，法院宣布第33.1条无效。在本文中，我们描述了加拿大法院中自动行为的法律历史以及这一重要裁决背后的推理。最后，我们讨论了对法医实践的一些影响。
