Susan+J+Bondy,+Self-Induced+Intoxication+as+a+Defense+in+the+Criminal+Code+of+Canada


 * Daviault v. R., which involved a violent sexual assault carried out under the influence of alcohol, represents the first case in which the SCC made it possible to use the defense of intoxication. The SCC stated that this defense could be used in a circumstance of "automatism", which renders the accused incapable of voluntary control of his or her actions due to a diseased and altered state of mind.
 * The case was followed by legislation enacted by the Parliament that restricts the use of this defense. This legislative effort was carried out in the context of public confusion and sentiment involving, for example, accusations of mysogyny in the public justice system and of failure of public agencies to protect society from the effects of alcohol abuse. The Canadian government's treatment of the issue required a balance between the rights of the individual from being unfairly tried or imprisoned, and the harm that could occur to others as a result of this requirement.
 * This legislation was passed in 1995 as part of Bill C-72: An Act to amend the Criminal Code. The Act 1) codifies the defense of self-induced intoxication, 2) codifies case law restriction that self-induced intoxication is available only for crimes of specific intent - with the restriction that a person who causes bodily harm to another shall be held criminally responsible, and 3) that this restriction excepts extreme self-induced intoxication that results in a state akin to automatism.
 * Complications with regard to this legislation include how to practically assess levels of intoxication, and the policy implications of lessening the culpability associated with extreme intoxication.


 * Responses issued by the Addiction Research Foundation of Ontario, a medical expert and the Canadian Psychiatric Association suggest that mental states similar to "automism" can occur in conjunction with the use of psychoactive substances. However, such instances are rare and as such should be identified by an expert in drug tolerance and metabolism. Extreme intoxication alone is not proof of automism.
 * The legislative treatment of intoxication as a defense has likely served to limit an expanded use of intoxication as a defense. However, an ideal solution has yet to be found with regards to using the law as a deterrent and restitutive force, but also as one that does not unfairly subject an accused to trial and imprisonment or to stigmatization or a lack of treatment.

Comparison with another perspective: the German approach
 * German provisions substitute the intent of becoming intoxication for the intent to commit, or negligent commitment of, a resulting offence. The German approach accepts the potential for serious harm as a result of extreme intoxication, and the associated desire to deter severe drunkenness.
 * The Canadian view of the causal link between intoxication and violence, on the other hand, appears more affected by concerns of policy and prevention.