R. v. Parks, (1992) 140 N.R. 161 (SCC)

• Judge: Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ.
• Court: Supreme Court of Canada
• Case Date: January 27, 1992
• Jurisdiction: Canada (Federal)
• Citations: (1992), 140 N.R. 161 (SCC);1992 CanLII 78 (SCC);95 DLR (4th) 27;55 OAC 241;[1992] 2 SCR 871;140 NR 161;17 WCB (2d) 111;75 CCC (3d) 287;JE 92-1310;15 CR (4th) 289;[1992] SCJ No 71 (QL);AZ-92111092

R. v. Parks (1992), 140 N.R. 161 (SCC)

MLB headnote and full text

[French language version follows English language version]

[La version française vient à la suite de la version anglaise]

....................

Her Majesty the Queen (appellant) v. Kenneth James Parks (respondent)

(No. 22073)

Indexed As: R. v. Parks

Supreme Court of Canada

Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest,

L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier,

Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson

and Iacobucci, JJ.

August 27, 1992.

Summary:

The accused attacked and killed his mother-in-law and attacked and injured his father-in-law. He was charged with murder and attempted murder and tried separately on each offence. At his murder trial he success­fully raised the defence of sleepwalking and was acquitted by a jury. On his subsequent trial for attempted murder the accused was acquitted on the basis of issue estoppel. The Crown appealed the acquittals.

The Ontario Court of Appeal in a decision reported 39 O.A.C. 27, dismissed the appeal. The Crown appealed again.

The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., and Cory, J., dissenting in part, dis­missed the appeal.

Criminal Law - Topic 96

Insanity, automatism etc. - General - The Supreme Court of Canada distinguished between the defence of non-insane auto­matism (e.g., sleepwalking), which will, if proven, result in an acquittal, and the defence insane automatism under the Criminal Code which, if proven, results in the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 98

Insanity, automatism etc. - "Disease of the mind" - What constitutes - The Supreme Court of Canada considered what consti­tutes a "disease of the mind" within the meaning of s. 16 of the Criminal Code (the insanity provision) - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Insanity, automatism etc. - Non-insane automatism - Sleepwalking - Somnambu­lism - The accused, while sleepwalking, murdered his mother-in-law and attempt- ed to murder his father-in-law - The trial judge left the defence of non-insane auto­matism with the jury, but not the defence of insanity under s. 16 of the Criminal Code - The jury acquitted the accused - The Crown appealed, arguing that the judge erred in leaving only the non-insane automatism defence to the jury - The Supreme Court of Canada affirmed that the trial judge was correct in leaving only the defence of non-insane automa­tism with the jury - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Criminal Law - Topic 103

Insanity, automatism etc. - Non-insane automatism - Sleepwalking - Somnambu­lism - [See Criminal Law - Topic 96 ].

Criminal Law - Topic 6963

Recognizances and undertakings - Peace bonds and orders to keep the peace - When granted - The accused was ac- quitted of murder and attempted murder on the ground of non-insane automatism (i.e., sleepwalking) - The Supreme Court of Canada, Lamer, C.J.C., and Corey, J., dissenting, refused to refer the matter to the trial judge for consideration of whether an order to keep the peace should be issued (i.e., an order requiring the accused to avoid activities etc. which might lead to other sleepwalking episodes) - See para­graphs 19 to 38, 69 to 76.

Criminal Law - Topic 6964

Recognizances and undertakings - Peace bonds and orders to keep the peace - Jurisdiction - [See Criminal Law - Topic 6963 ].

Words and Phrases

Disease of the mind - The Supreme Court of Canada discussed the meaning of this phrase as it was used in s. 16 of the Crim­inal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (the insanity provision) - See paragraphs 1 to 23.

Cases Noticed:

R. v. Rabey, [1980] 2 S.C.R. 513; 32 N.R. 451, refd to. [paras. 3-18, 45-47].

R. v. Rabey (1977), 37 C.C.C.(2d) 461 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [paras. 6, 47].

Bratty v. Attorney General for Northern Ireland, [1963] A.C. 386 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 3, 4, 12, 49].

R. v. Cooper, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149; 31 N.R. 234, refd to. [paras. 7, 42].

R. v. Swain, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 933; 125 N.R. 1; 47 O.A.C. 81, refd to. [para. 8].

R. v. Quick, [1973] 3 All E.R. 347 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 12].

R. v. Hennessy, [1989] 2 All E.R. 9 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 9].

R. v. Sullivan, [1984] A.C. 156 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 13, 51].

R. v. Burgess, [1991] 2 All E.R. 769 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 13, 15, 51, 53, 66-68].

R. v. Edgar (1913), 109 L.T. 416 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 20].

MacKenzie v. Martin, [1954] S.C.R. 361, refd to. [paras. 30, 70].

R. v. White; Ex parte Chohan, [1969] 1 C.C.C. 19 (B.C.S.C.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Shaben, [1972] 3 O.R. 613 (H.C.J.), refd to. [para. 30].

Stevenson v. Saskatchewan (Minister of Justice) et al. (1987), 61 Sask.R. 91 (Q.B.), refd to. [para. 30].

R. v. Hartridge, [1967] 1 C.C.C. 346 (Sask. C.A.), refd to. [para. 48].

Ryan v. The Queen (1967), 40 A.L.J.R. 488, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Cottle, [1958] N.Z.L.R. 999, refd to. [para. 50].

R. Ngang, [1960] 3 S.A.L.R. 363, refd to. [para. 50].

R. v. Tolson (1889), 23 Q.B.D. 168, refd to. [para. 50].

H.M. Advocate v. Fraser (1878), 4 Couper 70, refd to. [para. 50].

Broomes and The Queen, Re (1984), 12 C.C.C.(3d) 220 (Ont. C.A.), refd to. [para. 71].

Statutes Noticed:

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, sect. 1 [para. 32]; sect. 7 [paras. 34, 73]; sect. 11(b) [paras. 37, 76]; sect. 24(1) [para. 76].

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, sect. 16(2) [para. 43]; sect. 16(4) [para. 5]; sect. 614(2) [para. 17]; sect. 810 [paras. 30, 36]; sect. 810(3) [para. 36].

Justices of the Peace Act, 1361 (U.K.), 34 Edw. 3, c. 1, generally [para. 69].

Authors and Works Noticed:

Black's Law Dictionary (5th Ed. 1979), generally [para. 46].

Colvin, Eric, Principles of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1991), pp. 291 [para. 10]; 293 [para. 8]; 294 [para. 12].

Coté-Harper, Gisèle, Antoine D. Manga­nas and Jean Turgeon, Droit pénal cana­dien, 3 e éd., 1989, p. 473 [para. 54].

Fairall, Paul, Automatism (1981), 5 Crim. L.J. 335, pp. 341, 342 [para. 54].

Fenwick, Peter, Somnambulism and the Law: A Review (1987), 5 Behavioral Sciences and the Law 343, p. 354 [para. 15].

Gillies, Peter, Criminal Law (1985), p. 205 [para. 54].

Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Ed.), vol. 29, para. 444 [para. 22].

Howard, Colin, Howard's Criminal Law (5th Ed. 1990), pp. 424, 425 [para. 54].

Hucker, Stephen, J., Christopher D. Web­ster and Mark Ben-Aron, Mental Disor­der and Criminal Responsibility (1981), pp. 23 [para. 54]; 104-109 [para. 12].

Martin, Hon. G. Arthur, Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsibility in Canadian Law, in Stephen J. Hucker, Christopher D. Webster and Mark Ben-Aron, eds., Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsi­bility (1981), p. 23 [para. 54].

Mewett, Alan W., and Morris Manning, Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1985), p. 301 [para. 54].

Roth, Sir Martin, Modern Psychiatry and Neurology and the Problem of Responsi­bility, in Stephen J. Hucker, Christopher D. Webster and Mark Ben-Aron, eds., Mental Disorder and Criminal Responsi­bility (1981), pp. 104-109 [para. 12].

Smith, John Cyril and Brian Hogan, Crim­inal Law (6th Ed. 1988), pp. 40, 42 [para. 54].

Stuart, Don, Canadian Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1987), pp. 92, 93 [para. 10]; 94 [paras. 10, 12]; 95 [para. 12].

Weller, Malcolm P.I., Perchance to Dream (1987), 137 New Law J. 52, generally [para. 54].

Williams, Glanville Llewelyn, Textbook of Criminal Law (2nd Ed. 1983), pp. 665 [para. 54]; 666 [paras. 11, 52, 54]; 671-676 [para. 10].

Counsel:

Gary T. Trotter and David Butt, for the appellant;

Marlys Edwardh, Clayton Ruby and Del­mar Doucette, for the respondent.

Solicitors of Record:

Ministry of the Attorney General, Toronto, Ontario, for the appellant;

Ruby & Edwardh, Toronto, Ontario, for the respondent.

This appeal was heard on January 27, 1992, before Lamer, C.J.C., La Forest, L'Heureux-Dubé, Sopinka, Gonthier, Cory, McLachlin, Stevenson and Iacobucci, JJ., of the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision of the court was delivered in both official languages on August 27, 1992, including the following opinions:

La Forest, J. (L'Heureux-Dubé and Gonthier, JJ., concurring ) - see para­graphs 1 to 23;

McLachlin, J. (Iacobucci, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 24 to 28;

Sopinka, J. - see paragraphs 29 to 38;

Lamer, C.J.C., dissenting in part (Cory, J., concurring) - see paragraphs 39 to 76.

Stevenson, J., took no part in the judg­ment.