The Supreme Court of Canada ruled earlier this month that defendants in violent criminal cases can use extreme intoxication to the point of automatism as a defence — a decision that leaves us utterly astounded.
This means defendants who voluntarily consume intoxicating substances and then assault or interfere with the bodily integrity of another person can avoid conviction if they can prove they were too impaired to control their actions.
Quickly, the ruling received backlash, and critics are calling for the federal justice minister to close the legislative gap that could allow so many crimes to be swept under the rug.
Even if that does happen, we must question how we got here.
It’s no secret that addiction and substance use are rampant in Manitoba. And as the Sun has reported before, the resources available for people who use substances are lacking. In March, the provincial auditor general announced addictions programming in Manitoba is under review.
"As an office, we’ve identified problematic substance use and addictions is a certainly prevalent and growing concern in Manitoba," auditor general Tyson Shtykalo told the Sun in March.
The lack of treatment options available in Manitoba is just one issue. Another is the mental health crisis, which goes hand in hand with substance use. Often, failing mental health is what fuels addiction in the first place, and makes it that much more difficult to overcome the disease.
But Manitoba struggles on that front, too. In previous articles, the Sun has spoken to Brandon residents who said they waited several months before finally being able to access a mental health professional.
So, without proper addictions and mental health care available, the drug crisis in Manitoba will only thrive, leaving plenty of opportunity for violent crime.
The Supreme Court’s decision would harm women and girls the most, since they are the demographic most often victimized by violent crime, according to Statistics Canada.
It’s astonishing that in a country where drinking and driving is illegal, our highest court would allow abusers to use the defence of extreme intoxication to walk free, enabling them to repeat violent actions against vulnerable people. In turn, this would likely increase the demand for addictions and mental health care as people seek support to deal with their trauma.
Even without the Supreme Court ruling, we know the justice system does not always hold abusers accountable. We can see that with the missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls crisis — so many victims have been lost due to a failing or lack of effort to find them.
The Supreme Court found that, despite the "laudable purpose" of the Criminal Code provision, it runs afoul of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms because it is too broad, according to a Global News report.
"The legitimate goals of protecting the victims of these crimes and holding the extremely self-intoxicated accountable, compelling as they are, do not justify these infringements of the Charter that so fundamentally upset the tenets of the criminal law," the court said in the ruling.
Innocent until proven guilty — sure. That is a more than reasonable condition. After all, people deserve to be protected from being convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. However, what happens when the accused is indeed guilty but maybe, they had one too many drinks that night?
It’s an injustice waiting to happen, especially on post-secondary campuses where alcohol, drugs and extreme flirtation are all too prevalent.
"It is estimated that four out of five women who are sexually assaulted do not report due to feelings of humiliation or the fear of being revictimized in the legal process," according to a sexual violence on campus fact sheet published by the Canadian Federation of Students.
The message the Supreme Court’s decision sends is that while the victim suffered a brutal, life-altering attack, the justice system must protect the person who is responsible because they couldn’t control their substance intake and the actions that followed. It’s a disappointing ruling that adds another layer of inaccessibility to victims of violent crime.