Should "self-induced extreme intoxication" be a valid defence for murder or sexual assault?
Canada's Supreme Court said "yes," back in a May ruling. Now the federal government is tabling a bill to say "no," in June. The defence itself is narrow and nuanced, but the idea of allowing intoxicated people to to shirk responsibility in court is highly divisive. So what is the actual definition of "self-induced extreme intoxication"? What happened in the cases that set this precedent? And what would the impact be in the day-to-day operation of our justice system? GUEST: Pam Hrick, Executive Director & General Counsel at LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund
Audio is streamed directly from the publisher (rogers.simplecastaudio.com) as published in their RSS feed. Play Podcasts does not host this file. Rights-holders can request removal through the copyright & takedown page.
Show Notes
Canada's Supreme Court said "yes," back in a May ruling. Now the federal government is tabling a bill to say "no," in June. The defence itself is narrow and nuanced, but the idea of allowing intoxicated people to to shirk responsibility in court is highly divisive.
So what is the actual definition of "self-induced extreme intoxication"? What happened in the cases that set this precedent? And what would the impact be in the day-to-day operation of our justice system?
GUEST: Pam Hrick, Executive Director & General Counsel at LEAF, the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund
We love feedback at The Big Story, as well as suggestions for future episodes. You can find us:
Through email at [email protected]
Or @thebigstory.bsky.social on Bluesky