R. v. Cooper, (1979) 31 N.R. 234 (SCC)

• Judge: Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court (Canada)
• Case Date: December 21, 1979
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1979), 31 N.R. 234 (SCC);[1979] CarswellOnt 60;[1980] 1 SCR 783;[1979] SCJ No 139 (QL);1979 CanLII 188 (SCC);110 DLR (3d) 46;1979 CanLII 63 (SCC);51 CCC (2d) 129;31 NR 234;4 WCB 284;13 CR (3d) 97;[1980] 1 SCR 1149

R. v. Cooper (1979), 31 N.R. 234 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

R. v. Cooper

Indexed As: R. v. Cooper

Supreme Court of Canada

Laskin, C.J.C., Martland, Dickson, Beetz, Estey, Pratte and McIntyre, JJ.

December 21, 1979.

Summary:

This case arose out of a charge of murder against the accused. The accused 31 year-old man had a life-long psychiatric history. He was of borderline intelligence and had a personality disorder, mixed type, showing schizoid antisocial explosive and inadequate features. Notwithstanding this psychiatric description, a medical witness stated that the accused was not suffering from a "disease of the mind". The accused did not raise the defence of insanity, but called medical evidence in an attempt to show that he could not have had the necessary criminal intention to kill his victim, whom he strangled. The trial judge, however, felt compelled to mention the issue of insanity to the jury, but in effect withdrew the issue of insanity from the jury on the basis of the medical opinion that the accused was not suffering from a disease of the mind as required by s. 16 of the Criminal Code. The accused appealed and the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The accused appealed.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and ordered a new trial. The Supreme Court of Canada discussed and explained the legal concept "disease of the mind" and held that there was evidence of insanity to be put to the jury, notwithstanding the medical opinion that the accused was not suffering from a disease of the mind. The Supreme Court of Canada held that whether the accused's mental condition constituted a disease of the mind was a question for the trial judge and it was a question of fact for the jury whether the condition existed at the time the criminal act was committed. The Supreme Court of Canada held that the trial judge erred in treating the medical opinion as determinative of the issue of whether the accused had a disease of the mind, in failing to adequately review the evidence of insanity and in withdrawing the issue from the jury. See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Martland, J., dissenting, was of the opinion that, where the accused did not raise the defence of insanity and did not object to the trial judge's direction to the jury on insanity and where the evidence did not establish that the accused did not appreciate what he was doing, there was no substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice and the appeal should be dismissed under s. 613(1)(b)(iii) of the Criminal Code. See paragraphs 44 to 78.

Criminal Law - Topic 98

Insanity - Disease of the mind - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 16 - The Supreme Court of Canada held that "disease of the mind" is a legal and not a medical term - The Supreme Court of Canada held that, although medical, particularly psychiatric, evidence is pertinent to the question of what constitutes a disease of the mind, it is not conclusive - The Supreme Court of Canada held that what constitutes a disease of the mind is a question of law for the trial judge to decide - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a disease of the mind embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition, which impairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitory mental states, such as hysteria or concussion - The Supreme Court of Canada held that a condition can be a disease of the mind whether or not medical opinion includes the condition in the term - The Supreme Court of Canada held that it is for the jury to decide as a question of fact whether the condition existed when the criminal act was committed - See paragraphs 5 to 16.

Criminal Law - Topic 100

Insanity - Appreciate - Meaning of - Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, s. 16 - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of the word "appreciating" and held that it requires an ability to perceive the consequences, impact and results of a physical act - See paragraphs 19 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 105

Insanity - Jury charge - The Supreme Court of Canada held that upon the issue of insanity it was a question of law for the trial judge to decide whether the accused had a condition which constituted a disease of the mind and it was a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the accused had the condition at the time the criminal act was committed - See paragraphs 1 to 43.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Schwartz, [1977] 1 S.C.R. 673; 8 N.R. 585, appld. [para.6].

Bratty v. A.-G. for Northern Ireland, [1963] A.C. 386, appld. [para. 7].

R. v. O'Brien, [1966] 3 C.C.C. 288, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Kemp, [1957] 1 Q.B. 339, consd. [para. 7].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 461, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C.(2d) 337, consd. [para. 11].

R. v. Rivett (1950), 34 Cr. App. Rep. 87, appld. [para. 41].

R. v. Laycock, [1952] O.R. 908, appld. [para. 41].

Statutes Noticed:

Criminal Code of Canada, R.S.C. 1970, c. C-34, sect. 16 [paras. 5, 59]; sect. 613(1)(b)(iii) [para. 78].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Dixon, Owen, A Legacy of Hadfield, M'Naghten and Maclean (1957), 31 A.L.J. 255, 260 [para. 9].

Fingarette, H., The Concept of Mental Disease in Criminal Law Insanity Tests (1965-66), 33 U. Chicago L.R. 229, 232-233 [para. 7].

Hall, Jerome, Psychiatry and Criminal Responsibility (1956), 65 Yale L.J. 761, 764 [para. 7].

Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown (2nd Ed. 1724), p. 1 [para. 17].

McRuer, Report of the Royal Commission on Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases (1956), pp. 12 [paras. 19, 20]; 13 [para. 21].

Report of the Royal Commission on Capital Punishment (England) (1949-1953), p. 73 [para. 8].

Report of the Royal Commission on Law of Insanity as a Defence in Criminal Cases (McRuer Report) (1956), pp. 12 [paras. 19, 20]; 13 [para. 21].

Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law (4th Ed. 1978), p. 164 [para. 10].

Williams, Glanville, Criminal Law, p. 592 [para. 7].

Wily and Stallworthy, Mental Abnormality and the Law (1962), p. 20 [para. 7].

Counsel:

Alan R. Gold, for the appellant;

Edward F. Then, for the respondent.

This case was heard on May 31, 1979, at Ottawa, Ontario, before LASKIN, C.J.C., MARTLAND, DICKSON, BEETZ, ESTEY, PRATTE and McINTYRE, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada.

On December 21, 1979, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada was delivered and the following opinions were filed:

DICKSON, J. - See paragraphs 1 to 43;

MARTLAND, J., dissenting - See paragraphs 44 to 78.

LASKIN, C.J.C., BEETZ, ESTEY and McINTYRE, JJ., concurred with DICKSON, J.

PRATTE, J., concurred with MARTLAND, J. Former Justice PRATTE participated in the judgment but was not a party to the reasons.