R. v. Parks
Encyclopedia
R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada
decision on the criminal automatism defence
.
In an early morning in May 1987, Ken Parks drove to the house of his wife's parents. He attacked both of them with a kitchen knife, killing the mother and leaving the father seriously injured. Following the attack Parks went to the police station and turned himself in.
At trial, Parks argued that he was automatistic and not criminally liable. In his defence a doctor testified as to his mental state at the time of the murder. From the doctor's evidence it was determined that the accused was sleepwalking
at the time of the incident, and that he was suffering from a psychiatric rather than neurological illness. The jury acquitted Parks.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the condition of sleepwalking can be classified as non-insane automatism or should it be classified as "disease of the mind" (ie. mental disorder automatism) and warrant a verdict of "not guilty for reason of insanity". This distinction is a matter of law and decided by the judge.
The court upheld the acquittal as the evidence presented a reasonable doubt that Parks acted voluntarily.
held that the trial judge was correct in his analysis of the evidence and his decision not to characterize sleepwalking as a mental disorder.
La Forest, writing for L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ., agreed with Lamer in the characterization of the evidence, but looked further into the public policy of the defence. La Forest noted that the defence of mental disorder provides for a criminal exception which must be weighed against the interest in public safety. The applicability of the defence must focus on the likelihood of recurrence. For a person to be exempt from criminal liability under the "disease of the mind" defence (1) they must be a "continuing danger" to the public and (2) the condition must be an "internal cause" that stems from the accused's emotional or psychological state.
Supreme Court of Canada
The Supreme Court of Canada is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeals in the Canadian justice system. The court grants permission to between 40 and 75 litigants each year to appeal decisions rendered by provincial, territorial and federal appellate courts, and its decisions...
decision on the criminal automatism defence
Automatism (law)
-Definition:Automatism is a rarely used criminal defence. It is one of the mental condition defences that relate to the mental state of the defendant. Automatism can be seen variously as lack of voluntariness, lack of culpability or excuse...
.
In an early morning in May 1987, Ken Parks drove to the house of his wife's parents. He attacked both of them with a kitchen knife, killing the mother and leaving the father seriously injured. Following the attack Parks went to the police station and turned himself in.
At trial, Parks argued that he was automatistic and not criminally liable. In his defence a doctor testified as to his mental state at the time of the murder. From the doctor's evidence it was determined that the accused was sleepwalking
Sleepwalking
Sleepwalking, also known as somnambulism, is a sleep disorder belonging to the parasomnia family. Sleepwalkers arise from the slow wave sleep stage in a state of low consciousness and perform activities that are usually performed during a state of full consciousness...
at the time of the incident, and that he was suffering from a psychiatric rather than neurological illness. The jury acquitted Parks.
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the condition of sleepwalking can be classified as non-insane automatism or should it be classified as "disease of the mind" (ie. mental disorder automatism) and warrant a verdict of "not guilty for reason of insanity". This distinction is a matter of law and decided by the judge.
The court upheld the acquittal as the evidence presented a reasonable doubt that Parks acted voluntarily.
Opinion of the Court
Antonio LamerAntonio Lamer
Joseph Antonio Charles Lamer, PC, CC, CD was a Canadian lawyer, jurist and Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada.-Personal life:...
held that the trial judge was correct in his analysis of the evidence and his decision not to characterize sleepwalking as a mental disorder.
La Forest, writing for L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier JJ., agreed with Lamer in the characterization of the evidence, but looked further into the public policy of the defence. La Forest noted that the defence of mental disorder provides for a criminal exception which must be weighed against the interest in public safety. The applicability of the defence must focus on the likelihood of recurrence. For a person to be exempt from criminal liability under the "disease of the mind" defence (1) they must be a "continuing danger" to the public and (2) the condition must be an "internal cause" that stems from the accused's emotional or psychological state.