R. v. Chaulk
Encyclopedia
R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada
on the interpretation and constitutionality
of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada
which provides for a mental disorder defence
.
Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence
under section 11(d)
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
. The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section.
, and then stabbed and bludgeoned its sole occupant to death. A week later they turned themselves in, making full confessions
.
The only defence
raised was insanity
within the meaning of section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada
. Expert evidence was given at trial that Chaulk and Morrissette suffered from a paranoid psychosis which made them believe that they had the power to rule the world and that the killing was a necessary means to that end. They believed that they were above the ordinary law and thought they had a right to kill the victim because he was "a loser".
They were both convicted of murder
by a jury
in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, which was upheld on appeal.
The major questions to the Supreme Court of Canada
were:
They were convicted of murder
, but have appealed the decision on the basis of an error in instruction on the definition of the word “appreciate” and “wrong”.
The accused were convicted of first degree murder. The only defence raised at trial was insanity
, but this defence was rejected by the jury. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction
. This appeal is to determine (1) whether s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides that "Every one shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and to have been sane", infringes the presumption of innocence guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, if so, whether s. 16(4) is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter; (2) whether the meaning of the word "wrong" in s. 16(2) of the Code should be restricted to "legally wrong"; (3) whether s. 16(3) of the Code provides an alternative defence if the conditions of s. 16(2) were not met; and (4) whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to split its case by presenting its evidence
with respect to the sanity
of the accused in rebuttal.
of either the actus reus
or the mens rea
. It can also provide an excuse to criminal conduct, where intention is present. The defence can be raised in a number of ways, therefore. For example, the defence can plead insanity
to show a lack of capacity to understand right and wrong, or to show a cognitive breakdown leading to an irresistible impulse
to act.
The focus is on incapacity to form a mental element – a mentally disordered person does not have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.
“Wrong” means more than legally wrong or knowing the law of the land; it means morally wrong as well. This decision overruled R. v. Schwartz (1977). The test requires that the defence
establish that due to the mental illness
, the accused could not appreciate that his conduct:
“conformed to normal and reasonable standards of society”
“breaches a standard of moral conduct”
“would be condemned.”
Lamer addresses the floodgates question. First, the presence of a mental disorder is required before this analysis is even undertaken. Second, moral standards are not judged on the personal standards of the accused. The mental disorder must inhibit the accused from appreciating society’s standards of morality
. The accused cannot substitute its own moral code and say that he was acting according to that code.
, which concerns only the actus reus
and mens rea
. McLachlin feels that mental disorder incapacity is not an issue of mens rea
. Because of the lack of capacity
, the issue of mens rea
never arises.
As for the meaning of the word “wrong” McLachlin disagreed with Dickson’s position. From a historical point-of-view, moral
awareness has traditionally been unnecessary. Furthermore, the purpose of criminal law
is to deter unlawful conduct. She therefore equates lawful and moral conduct. By using the absence of an awareness of an abstract standard of morality
, the deterrence
function is lost. She feels that there is nothing to distinguish a morally deficient upbringing from moral deficiency because of mental disorder.
Finally, McLachlin raises the concern that the application of a moral
standard might be too vague. The jury is left to speculate about whether the mental illness
affected the defendant’s ability to appreciate an abstract moral code. The issue is complicated further by the facts that society does not agree on standards of morality
. Where an accused euthanizes someone (see case of Zygmanik) and believes that it is right – can that person then “hide behind” a mental disorder defence
to get absolved of criminal responsibility?
In response to McLachlin’s position, I would argue that people who suffer from mental disorders probably do not benefit from the deterrence function of the criminal law
. If their disorders so affect their ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, then the criminal law loses its deterrence
capability anyway.
How do we define the “nature” and “quality” of the act? The nature of the act is the basic composition of the act; there quality must go further (“the peculiar and essential character” of the act). The courts have not, however, explored the meaning of the word quality, until more recently in the Supreme Court of Canada
case of R. v. Oommen (1994).
In 1999, Robert Chaulk was accused of stabbing two of his neighbours to death on New Year's Day.
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...
on the interpretation and constitutionality
Constitutionality
Constitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
which provides for a mental disorder defence
Mental disorder defence
In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, the defence of mental disorder is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were mentally ill at the time of the alleged criminal actions.These are a statutory...
.
Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence
Presumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many...
under section 11(d)
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Section Eleven of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution's Charter of Rights that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. This includes both criminal as well as regulatory offences, as it provides rights for those accused by...
of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
. The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section.
Background
On September 3, 1985, 15 year-old Robert Chaulk and 16 year-old Francis Morrissette burglarized a home in WinnipegWinnipeg
Winnipeg is the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, and is the primary municipality of the Winnipeg Capital Region, with more than half of Manitoba's population. It is located near the longitudinal centre of North America, at the confluence of the Red and Assiniboine Rivers .The name...
, and then stabbed and bludgeoned its sole occupant to death. A week later they turned themselves in, making full confessions
Confessions
Confessions may refer to:*The plural of confession* Confessions , a series of books composed by St. Augustine of Hippo circa AD 397* Confessions , an autobiography by Jean-Jacques Rousseau...
.
The only defence
Defense (legal)
In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability...
raised was insanity
Insanity
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity...
within the meaning of section 16 of the Criminal Code of Canada
Criminal Code of Canada
The Criminal Code or Code criminel is a law that codifies most criminal offences and procedures in Canada. Its official long title is "An Act respecting the criminal law"...
. Expert evidence was given at trial that Chaulk and Morrissette suffered from a paranoid psychosis which made them believe that they had the power to rule the world and that the killing was a necessary means to that end. They believed that they were above the ordinary law and thought they had a right to kill the victim because he was "a loser".
They were both convicted of murder
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide...
by a jury
Jury
A jury is a sworn body of people convened to render an impartial verdict officially submitted to them by a court, or to set a penalty or judgment. Modern juries tend to be found in courts to ascertain the guilt, or lack thereof, in a crime. In Anglophone jurisdictions, the verdict may be guilty,...
in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, which was upheld on appeal.
The major questions to the Supreme Court of Canada
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...
were:
- whether s. 16(4) of the Criminal CodeCriminal CodeA criminal code is a document which compiles all, or a significant amount of, a particular jurisdiction's criminal law...
, which provides that "Every one shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and to have been sane", infringes the presumption of innocence guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsCanadian Charter of Rights and FreedomsThe Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada. It forms the first part of the Constitution Act, 1982...
and if so, it is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter; - whether the meaning of the word "wrong" in s. 16(2) of the Code should be restricted to "legally wrong";
- whether s. 16(3) of the Code provides an alternative defence if the conditions of s. 16(2) were not met; and
- whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to split its case by presenting its evidence with respect to the sanity of the accused in rebuttal.
They were convicted of murder
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human being, and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide...
, but have appealed the decision on the basis of an error in instruction on the definition of the word “appreciate” and “wrong”.
Opinion of the Court
There were three opinions:- Lamer – with Dickson, La Forest and Cory – held that section 16(4) violated s. 11(d) of the CharterCharterA charter is the grant of authority or rights, stating that the granter formally recognizes the prerogative of the recipient to exercise the rights specified...
, but was saved under section 1. He also held that the judge erred in interpreting the word "wrong" in section 16(4). - Wilson held that section 16(4) violated 11(d) and was not justified by section 1. She also held that the judge erred in interpreting the word "wrong" and erred in his instructions to the jury regarding the defence.
- Gonthier held that section 16(4) did not violate section 11(d) and that the judge erred in interpreting the word "wrong".
The accused were convicted of first degree murder. The only defence raised at trial was insanity
Insanity
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity...
, but this defence was rejected by the jury. The Court of Appeal upheld the conviction
Conviction
In law, a conviction is the verdict that results when a court of law finds a defendant guilty of a crime.The opposite of a conviction is an acquittal . In Scotland and in the Netherlands, there can also be a verdict of "not proven", which counts as an acquittal...
. This appeal is to determine (1) whether s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides that "Every one shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and to have been sane", infringes the presumption of innocence guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and, if so, whether s. 16(4) is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter; (2) whether the meaning of the word "wrong" in s. 16(2) of the Code should be restricted to "legally wrong"; (3) whether s. 16(3) of the Code provides an alternative defence if the conditions of s. 16(2) were not met; and (4) whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to split its case by presenting its evidence
Evidence
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either presumed to be true, or were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth...
with respect to the sanity
Sanity
Sanity refers to the soundness, rationality and healthiness of the human mind, as opposed to insanity. A person is sane if they are rational...
of the accused in rebuttal.
Reasoning
Lamer CJC explained that there is a presumption of criminal capacity. For a minor child, the reverse is true. For a child over age 14, the presumption of incapacity is rebuttable. A claim of insanity undermines the voluntarinessVoluntariness
Voluntariness is a legal and philosophical concept referring to a choice being made of a person's free will, as opposed to being made as the result of coercion or duress. Philosophies such as libertarianism and voluntaryism, as well as many legal systems, hold that a contract must be voluntarily...
of either the actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
or the mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
. It can also provide an excuse to criminal conduct, where intention is present. The defence can be raised in a number of ways, therefore. For example, the defence can plead insanity
Insanity
Insanity, craziness or madness is a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including becoming a danger to themselves and others, though not all such acts are considered insanity...
to show a lack of capacity to understand right and wrong, or to show a cognitive breakdown leading to an irresistible impulse
Irresistible impulse
In criminal law, irresistible impulse is a defense by excuse, in this case some sort of insanity, in which the defendant argues that they should not be held criminally liable for their actions that broke the law, because they could not control those actions....
to act.
The focus is on incapacity to form a mental element – a mentally disordered person does not have the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong.
“Wrong” means more than legally wrong or knowing the law of the land; it means morally wrong as well. This decision overruled R. v. Schwartz (1977). The test requires that the defence
Defense (legal)
In civil proceedings and criminal prosecutions under the common law, a defendant may raise a defense in an attempt to avoid criminal or civil liability...
establish that due to the mental illness
Mental illness
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural,...
, the accused could not appreciate that his conduct:
“conformed to normal and reasonable standards of society”
“breaches a standard of moral conduct”
“would be condemned.”
Lamer addresses the floodgates question. First, the presence of a mental disorder is required before this analysis is even undertaken. Second, moral standards are not judged on the personal standards of the accused. The mental disorder must inhibit the accused from appreciating society’s standards of morality
Morality
Morality is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good and bad . A moral code is a system of morality and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code...
. The accused cannot substitute its own moral code and say that he was acting according to that code.
Rationale
A trial judge must instruct the trier of fact that “appreciate that the act was wrong” means that because of the mental disorder, the accused could not understand or comprehend society’s moral condemnation of the conduct.Dissent
There were two dissenting opinions:- McLachlin – with L’Heureux-Dube – held that section 16(4) did not violate s. 11(d) of the Charter, and the trial judge did not err in any way.
- Sopinka held that section 16(4) violated section 11(d) but was justifiable under section 1 of the Charter. He also agreed with McLachlin that the judge did not err.
Critique
McLachlin J presented an alternative constitutional argument to validate section 16 of the Code. She contends that since sanity is a pre-condition to criminal responsibility, it falls outside of the scope of the presumption of innocencePresumption of innocence
The presumption of innocence, sometimes referred to by the Latin expression Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, is the principle that one is considered innocent until proven guilty. Application of this principle is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, recognised in many...
, which concerns only the actus reus
Actus reus
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions...
and mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
. McLachlin feels that mental disorder incapacity is not an issue of mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
. Because of the lack of capacity
Capacity (law)
The capacity of both natural and legal persons determines whether they may make binding amendments to their rights, duties and obligations, such as getting married or merging, entering into contracts, making gifts, or writing a valid will...
, the issue of mens rea
Mens rea
Mens rea is Latin for "guilty mind". In criminal law, it is viewed as one of the necessary elements of a crime. The standard common law test of criminal liability is usually expressed in the Latin phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means "the act does not make a person guilty...
never arises.
As for the meaning of the word “wrong” McLachlin disagreed with Dickson’s position. From a historical point-of-view, moral
Moral
A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves, or may be explicitly encapsulated in a maxim...
awareness has traditionally been unnecessary. Furthermore, the purpose of criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
is to deter unlawful conduct. She therefore equates lawful and moral conduct. By using the absence of an awareness of an abstract standard of morality
Morality
Morality is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good and bad . A moral code is a system of morality and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code...
, the deterrence
Deterrence
Deterrence may refer to:* Deterrence theory, a theory of war, especially regarding nuclear weapons* Deterrence , a theory of justice* Deterrence , a psychological theory...
function is lost. She feels that there is nothing to distinguish a morally deficient upbringing from moral deficiency because of mental disorder.
Finally, McLachlin raises the concern that the application of a moral
Moral
A moral is a message conveyed or a lesson to be learned from a story or event. The moral may be left to the hearer, reader or viewer to determine for themselves, or may be explicitly encapsulated in a maxim...
standard might be too vague. The jury is left to speculate about whether the mental illness
Mental illness
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural,...
affected the defendant’s ability to appreciate an abstract moral code. The issue is complicated further by the facts that society does not agree on standards of morality
Morality
Morality is the differentiation among intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good and bad . A moral code is a system of morality and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code...
. Where an accused euthanizes someone (see case of Zygmanik) and believes that it is right – can that person then “hide behind” a mental disorder defence
Mental disorder defence
In the criminal laws of Australia and Canada, the defence of mental disorder is a legal defence by excuse, by which a defendant may argue they should not be held criminally liable for breaking the law because they were mentally ill at the time of the alleged criminal actions.These are a statutory...
to get absolved of criminal responsibility?
In response to McLachlin’s position, I would argue that people who suffer from mental disorders probably do not benefit from the deterrence function of the criminal law
Criminal law
Criminal law, is the body of law that relates to crime. It might be defined as the body of rules that defines conduct that is not allowed because it is held to threaten, harm or endanger the safety and welfare of people, and that sets out the punishment to be imposed on people who do not obey...
. If their disorders so affect their ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, then the criminal law loses its deterrence
Deterrence
Deterrence may refer to:* Deterrence theory, a theory of war, especially regarding nuclear weapons* Deterrence , a theory of justice* Deterrence , a psychological theory...
capability anyway.
How do we define the “nature” and “quality” of the act? The nature of the act is the basic composition of the act; there quality must go further (“the peculiar and essential character” of the act). The courts have not, however, explored the meaning of the word quality, until more recently in the Supreme Court of Canada
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...
case of R. v. Oommen (1994).
Aftermath
Robert Chaulk was subsequently found not guilty by reason of insanity in a new trial. After four months of treatment, Robert Chaulk was found sane and released.In 1999, Robert Chaulk was accused of stabbing two of his neighbours to death on New Year's Day.