R v Daviault
Supreme Court of Canada case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about R v Daviault?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
SHOW ALL QUESTIONS
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.
Quick Facts R v Daviault, Hearing: February 4, 1994 Judgment: September 30, 1994 ...
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 [1] |
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. |
Close