Julia is experiencing a severe form of schizophrenia. He acts under the delusion that Peter, his neighbour, has a machine that generates death rays. One day, julia concludes that Peter is about to turn the death rays in his direction and that, to preserve his own life, he must kill Peter immediately. julia breaks into Peter's house and stabs him to death with a knife. When the police question julia , it is clear that he realizes that he has killed Peter, but he insists, "It was him or me, and I had to get him before he wasted me with those death rays." julia is charged with first-degree murder.

You have been hired as a part of julia's defence team. You are tasked with advising your supervising lawyer about the best possible defence that could be open to Julia. Indicate relevantCriminal Codeprovisions, case law and any legal principles that you would need to establish in order to successfully defend your client. Conclude by explaining whether you believe the defence would be successful.

Assignment:

Draft a memowith the following sections:Issue(s), Relevant Law, Application, Conclusion. You should also have a reference list at the end of each of your submission noting all sources you have relied upon.

As applicable, in the above sections, please indicate the relevantCriminal Codeprovisions, case law and legal principlesthat you would need to establish in order to successfully defend your client. Conclude by explaining whether you believe that Pierre is likely to be found guilty of the charges he faces.

use the following notes:

The Modern NCRMD in Canada

S. 16(1) ofCC

Modern day incorporation of M'Naghten's Rule in CC Most noteworthy variation w/ new M'Naghten Rule: use of the word "appreciate" as a

substitute for the word "know" in original phrase "know the nature and quality of the act" Also adds issue of accused's capacity to appreciate the nature and quality of act/omission or to

know that it was "wrong" whereas M'Naghten only concerned w/ accused's actual "knowledge"

of those matters Changed word "insane" w/ "mental disorder"

The Meaning of "Mental Disorder" in s. 16(1) of theCode

Mental disorder: a disease of the mind

InCooper(1980), was expanded, disease of the mind = 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 concussions

2

Also added to def'n: the NCRMD defence only comes into play if the disease is "of such intensity as to render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing that it is wrong"

oTwo-stagestatutorytest

1. Characterizing the mental state of the accused - key issue is whether accused

was suffering from mental disorder in legal sense @ time of event

2. Effects of the mental disorder - determining whether owing to their mental

condition the accused was incapable of "knowing that the act/omission was

wrong

Stone(1999) - "disease of the mind" is a legal and not strictly medical term

oExpert medical evidence is considerably relevant but ultimate decision on classification is made by trial judge

Trial judge must take into acct issues like public safety

E.g. may have condition that reoccurs and poses danger even tho psychiatrists

says its not a mental disorder - judge would classify as NCRMD - e.g. epilepsy

oJudge is entrusted w/ the task of deciding "whether the condition the accused claims to

have suffered from satisfied the legal test for disease of the mind" (e.g. whether

conditions like epilepsy is considered disease of mind) oOnce decision made, trier of fact (jury - if there is one) determines whether accused

actually had a disease of the mind (e.g. whether accused actually had epilepsy at time of

offence)

Only accused persons who were experiencing a severe mental disorder @ time of alleged

offence are likely to be found NCRMD oMustestablishthataccusedhadmentaldisorderthatmanifesteditselfinformof

psychotic symptoms that DSM-5 indicates that schizo spectrum and other psychotic disorders are defined by

abnormalities in the following 5 domains: delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking, grossly disorganized/abnormal

motor behaviour and negative symptoms

psychosis/psychotic conditions may find it v. difficult to distinguish b/t what is real/unreal - loss

of contact w/ reality may render them incapable of appreciating nature and quality of what they were doing or of knowing it was wrong

odiagnosis of schizophrenia spectrum disorder = made in relation to NCRMD accusedopplw/majordepressivedisorderorbipolarmayexppsychoticsymptoms-called

schizoaffective disorder "substance-induced psychosis" result of voluntary consumption of drug(s) - denied benefit of

NCRMD defence and limited instead to partial defence of intoxication oBut DSM-5 says consumption of certain drugs can lead to psychotic state oInBouchard-LeBrun(2011)-saidNCRMDisnotavailabletopplw/transitory(brief)

psychosis as direct consequence of involuntarily ingesting drugs oBut if drugs exacerbates pre-existing psychosis or causes psychotic condition that

endures for significant period (months) then entitled to NCRMD Once established accused was experiencing mental disorder ("disease of the mind") next step is

to establish either

3

o1. Accused lacked capacity to appreciate nature and quality of act or omission that forms the basis of charge against them

o2. Or that accused person lacked capacity to know the act or omission was wrong 1. The Capacity of the Accused Person to Appreciate the Nature and Quality of the Act or Omission

The Meaning of "Appreciate" in s. 16(1)

Appreciate replaced know from M'Naghten Rules

Barnier(1980)

oAccusedshotandkilledwomanandwenttotheroofw/hisgunanddemandedtospeak to PM

oPsyciatrists says he lacked ability to appreciate nature and quality of act but Crown said appreciate = know So psychiatrists changed their mind and said he knew what he was doing and that it was wrong

- got convicted of murder oBut that's wrong because appreciate =/= know - Parliament deliberately used 2 diff

words appreciate (nature/quality of act) and know (it was wrong)

Know - requiring bar awareness, the act of receiving info w/o more

Appreciating - 2ndstage of mental processing, requiring analysis of knowledge or

experience in one manner or another

Cooper(1980) oLonghistoryofhospitalizationofmentaldisorder-strangledfemale oMedical evidence says capable of intending bodily harm/choking but not capable of

intending to kill her Still convicted of murder

oAllowed appeal - M'Naghten changed from appreciate to know cuz to "broaden the legal and medical consideration bearing upon the mental state of accused and to make it clear the cognition was not to be the sole criterion"

o"Appreciate"importsadditionalrequirementtomereknowledgeofphysicalqualityof act; this requirement (unique to Canada) is thatof perception and ability to perceive the consequences, impact, and result of a physical act

Can be aware of physical character of action (e.g. choking) w/o necessarily having capacity to appreciate that in nature and quality will result in death

The Meaning of "Nature and Quality of the Act" in s. 16(1)

Nature and quality of an act refers exclusively to physical nature and quality of the act

Kjeldsen(1981)

oKilled taxi driver w/ large rock - dangerous psychopaths oExpertwitnessfordefencesoughttoapplyabroadtestthatwouldrequirethatthe

accused have the capacity not only to foresee the physical consequences of his axn but also to predict and to understand the subjective or emotional reactions of his victim

Defence experts said psychopaths are incapable of experiencing normal or appropriate feelings about the effects of his actions on other ppl - cant feel remorse or guilt = cant appreciate nature and quality of his conduct

4

Crown experts said s.16(1) only referred to accused's capacity to understand and foresee thephysicalconsequences of his axn and that even a psychopath would able to appreciate nature and quality of his conduct

Judge says: to be capable of appreciating - must have capacity to know what he is doing - he knew he was hitting woman w/ rock w/ great force and have capacity to estimate and understand physical consequences of acts (causing death)

oJusticeMartininSimpson(1977)

NCRMD defence doesn't extend to ppl who understand nature, character and

consequences of act - even if they lack appropriate feelings for victim or lack

feelings of remorse/guilt - even if its from "disease of the mind"

Appreciation of the nature/quality of the act does not import feelings about the

effect of the act on other ppl

And its true absence of feelings is common characteristic of many ppl who

engage in repeated srs criminal conduct

oAfter all, cant let someone go free just because they lack appropriate feelings for victims

or didn't exp the appropriate pangs of remorse or guilt oTherefore his personality disorder didn't meet criteria for NCRMD

2. The Capacity of The Accused Person to Appreciate That the Act or Omission Was Wrong The Meaning of "Wrong" in s. 16(1)

the second "arm" of NCRMD - unable of knowing act/omission was wrong

Parliament didn't make it clear whether it mean morally or legally wrong

oe.g. Man kills woman because order of God and sacrifice to save world from destruction

he appreciates nature and quality of act, and if wrong meant legally wrong then

second arm would also not apply

but if wrong meant morally then he was acting by direct orders of God - s.16(1)

applies

Wrong - "wrong according to the ordinary moral standards of reasonable member of society"

oUnjusttofindmentallydisorderedcriminallyresponsiblemerelycuzknewconductwas contrary to law of land

Doesn't mean ppl who lack basic moral principles are acquitted w/ NCRMD oThe accused incapacity to make moral distinctions must be causally related to their

mental disorder oAnd not whether person believes actions are morally justified but whetherhe or she is

capable of knowing that society at large regards the conduct as being morally wrong

Landry(1991) oMan charged w/ 1stdegree murder and admitted killed victim, said he was God and his

victim was Satan and had to kill Satan to fulfill his divine mission to rid the world of the

forces of evil oHe knew murder was a crime but was found NCRMD b/c psychotic mental condition

rendered him incapable of knowing ordinary person would regard killing as morally

wrong Oommen(1994)

5

oKilledwomanbyshootingherwhileshewassleeping-chargedw/2nddegreemurderoHad many years of paranoid delusion psychosis - believed members of local union

involved in conspiracy to kill him oThought the woman was going to kill him so he had to kill her before she did so oPsychiatrists said his mental disorder would not cause him to lose intellectual capacity to

distinguish b/t right and wrong in abstract and to know that killing was wrong - but

mental disorder gave him honest belief that killing the woman was justified oJudge says murder was caused by his mental disorder and that he did not believe it was

wrong - but he did have general capacity to know right from wrong so wasn't relieved

from criminal responsibility (but this is wrong - shouldn't be focusing on general abilityMolodowic(2000)

oShoot his grandpa to death oHad paranoid schizophrenia - affected w/ visual and auditory hallucinations and elusions

of persecution oHe appreciated the nature and quality of his acts and knew it was a crime - but did not

know that his acts were morally wrong

Rmb: just cuz someone has severe mental disorder does not automatically lead to conclusion

that accused lacked capacity to know that their conduct would be considered morally wrong by

ordinary members of society

And that NCRMD includes proving on balance of probabilities that they lacked capacity to know

conduct was blameworthy

APPLY THE TWO STAGE STATATUERY test and the TWO Hands

meaning of appreciate

meaning of nature andd quaality

meaning of wrong

attached is a example below for reference ::

Issues:

Whether it is likely that Pierre will be convicted of second-degree murder.

Relevant Law:

Criminal Code s.231

o(1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder. o(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate. o(7) All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder.

Legal principles and case law

oFactual and legal causationNette(2001)

In determining whether an accused's conductcausedthe prohibited consequences, the Crown must establish both factual and legal causation.

Factual causation is concerned with how the consequence came about and what the contribution of the accused was.

Legal causation is concerned with whether the accused should be held responsible in law for the consequence.

Trotta(2004)

Shilon(2006)

Nodrick(2012)

o"Significant contributing cause"Smithers(1977)

Factual causation requires the Crown to prove that "but for the accused's conduct, the prohibited consequence would never have occurred".

Legal causation is concerned with whether a reasonable person would have been able to foresee the prohibited consequence.

In establishing legal causation for homicide caused by leaving a victim in a particular situation, it must be determined whether a reasonable person would foresee consequences beyond some harm or injury that is more than brief or minor.

In cases of homicide, an accused's person does not have to be the sole cause of death, but it must be a "contributing cause, outside the de minimis range".

The accused's conduct must be shown to have more than a minimal impact on the events leading to the victim's death.

This test applies to all homicide cases.

Nette(2001)

oIntervening act Sarrazin(2011)

Maybin(2012)

oIntervening act or event of natureYounger(2004)

Nodrick(2012)

Reaffirmed and reworded the rule established inSmithers(1977)

In cases of homicide, an accused person's conduct does not have to be the sole cause of death, but nonetheless must constitute a "significant contributing cause".

An intervening act or event may sever the chain of causation if it was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the accused's conduct.

An intervening act that is reasonably foreseeable to the accused may not sever the chain of causation.

When the victim dies as a result of some external act or event of nature, the question becomes whether the event or act of nature can be viewed as a "natural consequence" of the accused's action.

A person living in Winnepeg in the winter months should know that leaving a child exposed to sub-zero temperatures for even an hour would likely cause the death of a scantily clad young child

Death might not be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of leaving an adult in a field on a warm, sunny day near a golf course or farmhouse.

Application:

Factual causation

Factual causation is readily established: "but for" Pierre leaving John in the field, John would not have died.

Legal causation

Whether Pierre's death should have been a reasonably foreseeable consequence to John's conduct:

oYounger(2004) established that the physical condition and capabilities of the victim is relevant when determining if a consequence was reasonably foreseeable.

oThough Pierre could walk home within 35 minutes, Pierre is younger and in better physical shape than the victim. As John was "elderly and frail", it should have been reasonably foreseeable to Pierre that John might not be able to walk home.

oUnlike inNodrick(2012), Pierre left John in a remote field with no populated areas nearby.

oAs the temperatures were mild at the time Pierre left John in the field, it would be reasonably foreseeable that the temperatures would drop over- night.

oTherefore, it should have been reasonably foreseeable that leaving John in a remote field in mild conditions, with no access to help and no protection from the elements, might cause him to sustain harm beyond that which is trivial or minor in nature.

Whether the drop in temperature constituted an intervening act severing the chain of causation:

oYounger(2004) established that the potential consequences of exposure to climate and temperatures should be reasonably foreseeable to an accused who lives in that climate.

oUnlike the circumstances inNodrick(2012), Pierre left John in a remote field in mild weather conditions rather than sunny and warm.

As the weather conditions were mild at the time of leaving John in the field, it would be reasonable for Pierre to foresee that the temperatures would drop and deteriorate overnight.

oTherefore, the drop in weather conditions were reasonably foreseeable and do not severe the chain of causation.

Significant contributing cause

Pierre's actions were not the sole cause of John's death. John died of exposure to severe weather conditions.

Though John died of exposure to the weather conditions, Pierre left him alone and exposed in these conditions (by removing his clothes) and restricted John's ability to seek help and call for assistance (by taking his phone and wallet).

These actions, taken together, had more than a minimal impact on the events leading to John's death. Therefore, Pierre's action do constitute a significant contributing cause in John's death.

Conclusion:

Based on the application of the facts, it is likely that Pierre will be convicted of second- degree murder.

The factual causation of Pierre's death is readily established. Legal causation is established as it should have been reasonably foreseeable that John would not be able to find his way home and become exposed to deteriorating weather conditions.

The weather conditions do not constitute an intervening act severing the chain of causation and Pierre's action constitute a significant contributing case to John's death.