 |
|
|
|
|
  
|
Drunkenness not accepted as excuse Casey Lessard Northern News Services Published Monday, March 12, 2012
In a Feb. 13 decision, Justice Neil Sharkey said the man's Charter rights were infringed, but "justifiably" so, to protect the rights of victims of intoxicated violence. The offender's lawyer, Tamara Fairchild, had argued that section 33.1 of the Criminal Code, which forbids the use of extreme intoxication as a defence, was a breach of the man's rights, under Sections 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to fundamental justice and to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. But Sharkey agreed with Crown prosecutor Leo Lane that those Charter rights could be overridden under Section 1 of the Charter, which says Charter rights are subject to reasonable limits. Fairchild argued that the law, which was added to the Criminal Code after a man raped a woman who used a wheelchair, was "apparently" but not "really" designed to stop violence against women; rather the law was intended to remove intoxication as a defence. She hoped to have the section of the Code stricken. Sharkey upheld the law, saying it is extremely limited in scope and was intended to protect anyone subject to violence from intoxicated people, particularly, but not exclusively, women and children. He acknowledged it did infringe upon the man's Charter rights under Sections 7 and 11, but it did so in a way that most people would consider "common sense." Saying the excuse would become common in Nunavut, the territory with the most violence per capita in Canada and where most violence involves alcohol, he couldn't justify questioning the law. "Intoxicated offenders (must be) responsible for their actions," he said. The date and location of the incident and the names of those involved were not mentioned in the decision.
|
