Automatism-Legitimate Defence or Legalized Irresponsibility: R. v. Joudrie
| Author | Noel C. O'brien |
| Pages | 109-138 |
Automatism-Legitimate
Defence
or
Legalized
Irresponsibility:
R. v.
Joudrie
NOEL
C.
O'BRIEN,
QC
1998
On
January
21,
1995, Dorothy Joudrie, without
the
slightest suggestion
of
provocation, reached
out
towards
her
estranged husband with
a
small-calibre
handgun
and fired six
bullets into
his
body.
A
year
and a
half later
a
jury con-
cluded that Mrs. Joudrie
was
"not criminally responsible"
for the
attack.
She
relied
on an
extremely controversial defence known
as
automatism.
As
a
defence, automatism
has a
tendency
to
raise more than controver-
sy.
It
often
gives rise
to
outright public condemnation and,
in
some cases,
community outrage. This type
of
reaction
may be
understandable, given
the
results
of
high-profile cases such
as R. v.
Parks
and, more recently,
R. v.
Joudrie.
When
an
accused murders
or
attempts
to
murder
another
human
being,
it no
doubt
offends
the
ordinary person's sense
of
justice
to see the
admitted perpetrator
go
free
based
on
what appears
to be a
simple claim
of
sleepwalking
or
disassociation. Indeed, Justice Dickson,
in R. v.
Rabey, admit-
ted to the
potential
for the
defence
of
automatism
to
severely strain
the
cred-
ibility
of the
criminal justice system, particularly
in
regard
to the
fact
that
"automatism
as a
defence
is
easily feigned." Automatism
has
been condemned
by
some
as
legalized irresponsibility. Others simply shrug
off the
defence
as
an
easy
way out for
those fortunate
few who are
wealthy enough
to buy
their
own
form
of
justice.
Is
this cynical view truly
justified?
Do
lawyers really believe that automatism actually exists,
or are we
sim-
ply
feeding
off
eager psychiatrists
who
appear more than willing
to
promote
109
110
NOEL O'BRIEN
our
self-serving
theories
and
satisfy
our
pursuit
of a
successful
defence
for our
client?
Is the
defence
of
automatism
a
fraud
on the
judicial system
and the
public
at
large
for
which lawyers
are
responsible,
or can we
justify
it on the
basis that
the
defence
is, for the
most part, simply misunderstood?
Do
lawyers
consciously
or
subconsciously provide clients with
the
necessary fodder
to
feed
the
psychiatrist with
the
material
to
form
the
foundation
for
this
defence?
Is the
public correct
in its
apparent assessment that automatism,
as
a
defence, promotes nothing less
than
a
complete abdication
of the
require-
ment
that
all
citizens bear personal responsibility
for
their actions? These
types
of
questions
arise
naturally
from cases such
as R. v.
Joudrie
in
which
the
defence
of
automatism
is
advanced.
There
is
little question that
the
jury verdict
that
Mrs. Joudrie
was not
criminally responsible
for her
actions, although applauded
by
some,
was for
the
most
part
met
with disdain
and
outrage. With
so
much criticism,
I
asked
myself
why the
community reacted this
way to a
verdict
that
I
found emi-
nently
fair.
Having been
defence
counsel
in
almost sixty murder cases,
I am
neither timid
nor
reluctant
in
advancing
all
legal
defences
available
to my
client,
no
matter
how
reprehensible
the
crime.
My
interest
in
this case
lay
.more
in the
possible reasons underlying such
an
adverse reaction
to the
Joudrie
verdict
and the
defence
of
automatism.
Was it
because
the
media por-
trayed
her as a
"wealthy socialite" well equipped
to buy
herself
a
successful
defence?
Was it a
natural reaction
from
those
who
feel
that there
is a
justice
system
for
those
who
have money
and a
different
one for
those
who do
not?
Was
it
simply because
the
public
was
inadequately informed
on the
legal intri-
cacies
of a
defence that,
by its
very nature,
is
complex
and
difficult
to
com-
prehend even
by
those
who are
schooled
in
both
the
medical
and the
legal
fields?
Or was it
because
the
public
is
right
and the
criminal justice system
is
lax
in
ensuring that
all
offenders
must
be
held accountable
for
their actions?
A
taste
of the
public reaction
can be
found
in the
headline
of one of
Calgary's leading newspapers, which unambiguously read "Outrage"
follow-
ing the
Joudrie verdict.
The
newspaper claimed that
the
majority
of
readers
who
responded
to the
newspaper poll considered
the
case
to be a
"gross mis-
carriage
of
justice."
The
Globe
and
Mail
stated that
the
Joudrie verdict "raises
issues
as to
whether there were special systems
of
justice
for the
rich
and for
battered
women."
Although those
who
studied
the
intricacies
of the
case
in
more detail sprinkled
the
editorials with some support,
the
prevailing auto-
To continue reading
Request your trial