R v Daviault
R v Daviault [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63, is a Supreme Court of Canada decision on the availability of the defence of intoxication for "general intent" criminal offences. The Leary rule which eliminated the defence was found unconstitutional in violation of both section 7 and 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, intoxication can only be used as a defence where it is so extreme that it is akin to automatism or insanity.
| R v Daviault | |
|---|---|
| Hearing: February 4, 1994 Judgment: September 30, 1994 | |
| Full case name | Henri Daviault v. Her Majesty The Queen |
| Citations | [1994] 3 S.C.R. 63 |
| Docket No. | 23435 |
| Ruling | Appeal allowed, new trial ordered. |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, Frank Iacobucci, John C. Major | |
| Reasons given | |
| Majority | Cory J., joined by L'Heureux-Dubé, McLachlin and Iacobucci JJ. |
| Concurrence | Lamer C.J. |
| Concurrence | La Forest J. |
| Dissent | Sopinka J., joined by Gonthier and Major JJ. |
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.