The Supreme Court restores an Alberta man’s acquittal for attacking a woman while in a state of automatism.

Matthew Brown drank wine and took "magic mushrooms" at a party in Calgary, Alberta on January 12, 2018. Psilocybin, an illegal drug that can produce hallucinations, which is found in mushrooms. Mr. Brown lost his sense of reality, fled the party, and physically assaulted a woman inside a nearby residence. As a result of the incident, the woman has lasting injuries. When Brown broke into another house, the residents alerted the authorities. Brown claimed he had no recollection of the events.

Brown faces charges of aggravated assault, breaking and entering, and property damage. He had no prior criminal record or mental illness background.

Brown pleaded not guilty to the allegations of "automatism" throughout his trial. When someone claims to have lost entire control of himself due to intoxication or impairment, this is known as automatism.

The Crown contended that Brown could not use automatism as a defense because section 33.1 of the Criminal Code prohibits using automatism as a defense for offenses involving assault or interference with another person's bodily integrity.

Mr. Brown stated that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms' sections 7 and 11(d). Section 7 ensures that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person, whereas section 11(d) ensures that everyone is deemed innocent until proven guilty. Brown was acquitted after the judge agreed with him. The Crown appealed to the Alberta Court of Appeal, which upheld Brown's conviction. He subsequently took his case to Canada's Supreme Court.

The acquittal has been reinstated by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court heard this case with R. v. Sullivan, and the decisions are being handed down together at the same time.

Section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter and is therefore unconstitutional.

According to Justice Nicholas Kasirer, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, section 33.1 of the Criminal Code violates sections 7 and 11(d) of the Charter in a fashion that cannot be justified in a free and democratic society and is therefore unconstitutional. He argues that section 33.1 breaches section 11(d) of the Charter because society could misinterpret someone's desire to get drunk as a desire to commit a violent crime. Section 33.1 also directly contradicts section 7 because the prosecution does not have to prove that the activity was voluntary or that the individual meant to commit the crime.

Convicting someone for their actions while in a state of automatism is a violation of fundamental justice standards. The concept of personal responsibility supports our criminal justice system. To be found guilty of a crime in Canada, two elements of fundamental justice must be present which are a guilty action and a guilty mind. When a person is in a condition of automatism, neither element is present.

Parliament could implemant legislation to address the issue of extreme intoxication related violence/crimes.

The Court indicated that Parliament could implement new legislation to hold someone who is highly intoxicated responsible for a serious crime. "Protecting victims of violent crime – especially in light of the equality and dignity interests of women and children who are vulnerable to drunken sexual and domestic activities – which is a pressing and important social purpose" as stated by the Court.