Assessing automatism (R. v. Stone).

• Author: Mitchell, Teresa

The Supreme Court of Canada recently looked at the use of automatism as a defence to criminal charges. The case involved a BC man who killed his wife. He stabbed her 47 times, concealed her body, cleaned up, drove home, took care of some financial matters, and then flew to Mexico. At trial, he claimed the defences of both insane and non-insane automatism. Automatism means unconscious, involuntary behaviour. Insane automatism arises from a disease of the mind, and, if successful, leads to a verdict of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder. Non-insane automatism usually involves behaviour while sleepwalking or after suffering a blow to the head and, if accepted, leads to an acquittal. In this case, both defences were rejected and the accused was sentenced to seven years in prison. After the BC Court of Appeal upheld the verdict, he appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Canada's top court set out some guidelines in using the automatism defence. The majority decision said, "A two-step approach...