Criminal Code of Canada - section 33.1(2) - Self-induced intoxication

section 33.1(2)

INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION

Individuals who are voluntarily or involuntarily intoxicated and interfere with or threaten to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person are criminally at fault.

SECTION WORDING

33.1(2) For the purposes of this section, a person departs markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society and is thereby criminally at fault where the person, while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders the person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person.

EXPLANATION

Section 33.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that outlines the circumstances under which a person can be held criminally responsible for their actions in the context of self-induced intoxication. This provision is meant to address situations where individuals engage in harmful behaviour that affects the bodily integrity of another person, while under the influence of drugs or alcohol. According to this provision, a person can be found criminally at fault if they depart markedly from the standard of reasonable care generally recognized in Canadian society while in a state of self-induced intoxication that renders them unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour. This means that if an individual consumes drugs or alcohol to the point where they lose control over their actions, they can be held liable for any harm they cause to others. The provision specifically targets situations where a person voluntarily or involuntarily interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person. This can include physical violence, sexual assault, or other forms of harm that result from the actions of an intoxicated individual. Overall, Section 33.1(2) serves as an important provision in the Criminal Code of Canada by holding individuals accountable for their actions even in the context of self-induced intoxication. It emphasizes the need for individuals to exercise reasonable care and control over their behaviour, especially when it may cause harm to others.

COMMENTARY

Section 33.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a unique provision that serves to address the issue of self-induced intoxication as a defense in criminal proceedings. The section states that if a person is in a state of self-induced intoxication, which renders them unaware of or incapable of consciously controlling their behavior, and they interfere or threaten to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person, then they are criminally at fault. This provision essentially limits the use of self-induced intoxication as a defense in criminal proceedings involving assaults and other similar offenses. The primary purpose of this provision is to ensure that individuals do not escape criminal liability by claiming that their actions were the result of self-induced intoxication. The provision achieves this by holding individuals accountable for their behavior even if they were intoxicated at the time of the offense. It is important to note that the provision does not completely eliminate the defense of self-induced intoxication but limits its applicability to cases where bodily harm is not involved. Notably, the provision sets a high bar for what constitutes a departure from the standard of reasonable care recognized in Canadian society. This means that the use of self-induced intoxication as a defense in criminal proceedings involving assaults and other similar offenses will only be successful if the offender can prove that their behavior was not a marked departure from the standard of reasonable care recognized in Canadian society. This requirement seeks to balance the interests of affected parties and ensure that only those whose behavior is truly influenced by alcohol or drugs are able to claim self-induced intoxication as a defense. One notable aspect of section 33.1(2) is that it applies to both voluntary and involuntary intoxication. Involuntary intoxication occurs when an individual is under the influence of drugs or alcohol without their knowledge or consent, while voluntary intoxication occurs when an individual knowingly and willingly ingests drugs or alcohol. The provision recognizes that regardless of the circumstances surrounding the intoxication, an individual who interferes or threatens to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person while intoxicated is held criminally responsible. Overall, section 33.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that seeks to address the issue of self-induced intoxication as a defense in criminal proceedings. The provision recognizes the importance of holding individuals accountable for their actions while also acknowledging the impact that intoxication can have on a person's behavior. By limiting the applicability of the defense of self-induced intoxication in cases where bodily harm is involved, the provision balances the interests of affected parties and ensures that justice is served.

STRATEGY

Section 33.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada is a provision that deals with self-induced intoxication and its effect on criminal liability. This provision is important because it recognizes that individuals who voluntarily or involuntarily become intoxicated and interfere with the bodily integrity of another person can be held criminally liable for their actions. However, the provision also creates some strategic considerations for those dealing with this section of the Criminal Code. Here are some of the strategic considerations and strategies that could be employed when dealing with section 33.1(2). 1. Determining the level of intoxication: One of the challenges with section 33.1(2) is determining the level of intoxication that renders a person unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour. This is an important consideration because without clear evidence of intoxication a defence of self-induced intoxication may be difficult to establish. Therefore, the strategy here would be to carefully examine all the evidence related to the accused's intoxication, such as witness testimony, medical reports, and toxicology reports, to determine the level of intoxication. 2. Proving voluntary or involuntary intoxication: Another challenge with section 33.1(2) is proving whether the accused became intoxicated voluntarily or involuntarily. This is important because voluntary intoxication is generally not a defence to a criminal offence, whereas involuntary intoxication can be. Therefore, the strategy here would be to gather evidence related to the accused's consumption of drugs or alcohol, including statements from the accused and witness testimony. 3. Establishing the interference with bodily integrity: The third challenge with section 33.1(2) is establishing that the accused interfered with or threatened to interfere with the bodily integrity of another person. This can be difficult to prove, especially if there is no physical evidence of an assault or if the victim's injuries are not serious. Therefore, the strategy here would be to gather as much evidence as possible related to the alleged assault, including witness testimony, medical reports, and forensic evidence. 4. Arguing lack of intent: If the accused's level of intoxication was such that they were unaware of, or incapable of consciously controlling, their behaviour, a defence of lack of intent may be available. This defence would require establishing that the accused did not have the requisite intent to commit the offence, which may be difficult to do in cases where the accused's actions were particularly violent or aggressive. Therefore, the strategy here would be to carefully examine the accused's actions and state of mind at the time of the offence, including any statements they made to others or to police. In conclusion, section 33.1(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada creates some challenges for those dealing with cases involving self-induced intoxication. However, by carefully examining the evidence related to intoxication, establishing whether the intoxication was voluntary or involuntary, proving that the accused interfered with the bodily integrity of another person, and arguing lack of intent where possible, it may be possible to successfully defend against charges laid under this section of the Criminal Code.