|
''R v Chaulk'', () 3 S.C.R. 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation and constitutionality of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code which provides for a mental disorder defence. Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence under section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section. ==Background== On September 3, 1985, 15-year-old Robert Chaulk and 16-year-old Francis Morrissette burglarized a home in Winnipeg, and then stabbed and bludgeoned its sole occupant to death. A week later they turned themselves in, making full confessions. The only defence raised was insanity within the meaning of section 16 of the Criminal Code. Expert evidence was given at trial that Chaulk and Morrissette suffered from a paranoid psychosis which made them believe that they had the power to rule the world and that the killing was a necessary means to that end. They believed that they were above the ordinary law and thought they had a right to kill the victim because he was "a loser". They were both convicted of murder by a jury in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench, which was upheld on appeal. The major questions to the Supreme Court of Canada were: # whether s. 16(4) of the Criminal Code, which provides that "Every one shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to be and to have been sane", infringes the presumption of innocence guaranteed in s. 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and if so, it is justifiable under s. 1 of the Charter; # whether the meaning of the word "wrong" in s. 16(2) of the Code should be restricted to "legally wrong"; # whether s. 16(3) of the Code provides an alternative defence if the conditions of s. 16(2) were not met; and # whether the trial judge erred in permitting the Crown to split its case by presenting its evidence with respect to the sanity of the accused in rebuttal. They were convicted of murder, but have appealed the decision on the basis of an error in instruction on the definition of the word “appreciate” and “wrong”. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「R v Chaulk」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|