A judge has rejected a man's insanity defence in a knife attack last summer that led to aggravated assault charges.
The incident took place on the Wikwemikong First Nation last August on Manitoulin Island, when a man was stabbed in the neck in an unprovoked attack.
The attacker said he heard the voice of his dead father telling him that the victim had murdered him and that he should attack him in revenge.
Witnesses testified they saw the accused run up behind the victim and stab him, and at least one heard the attacker say, “I know you killed my father.”
The suspect told investigating officers that “he was getting a 'weird vibe'” that was telling him to kill, “something like a flare.
“I just thought it was like Bear Witch or Bear Walker, bad, bad vibes,” he told police, adding that “it was like kinda taking control of me.”
The victim was taken to hospital and treated for blood loss and a two-inch stab wound to his neck.
The defence for the suspect pleaded not guilty due to mental disorder. A mental health physician called by the defence said she examined the suspect after he was admitted to Waypoint, a mental health facility in Penetanguishene.
She testified that after his admission, the suspect displayed erratic behaviour that eventually led her to conclude he was suffering from psychosis, most likely schizophrenia.
He “winked and made kissing gesture towards female staff,” she testified. “He was also seen laughing to himself, and making facial grimaces and grunting noises for no apparent reason. He was also seen licking his window.”
“The statements demonstrate paranoia toward the victim,” she testified. “He was influenced by hearing voices, seeing his father’s spirit, and believed his father was speaking to him at the time, telling his what to do. Thought insertions are features of psychotic illness that point to a disturbed state of mind.”
However, she also concluded that in his state of mind, he still knew that stabbing someone was wrong.
“When asked whether this mental disorder would have rendered him incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act, she replied 'no,' ” the court transcript says. “She said, 'I think he knew what he was doing … I think he knew he was stabbing a human being ... but he was acting under the influence of his mental disorder.
“He was not able to access rational choice ... He was not able to consider the wrongfulness of his actions.”
She also testified she was unable to get information from his family and friends about whether there was a history of mental health issues, nor was she able to access any of his prior medical history.
In his ruling, the judge said the Criminal Code describes the test for mental competency this way: “No person who committed an offence while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong may be convicted. The test is a legal test, not a medical test.”
That's a crucial element of this case, the judge wrote, because for the mental disorder defence to succeed, the suspect in the case must not be aware that what they are doing is wrong, or be able to appreciate the effect of their actions.
“The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong, and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not,” the judge wrote.
In this case, there is evidence the suspect knew his actions were wrong, even if he believed he was receiving instructions from his dead father.
While not questioning the conclusions of the physician who examined the suspect after the stabbing, the judge did question why she was not given access to his records, including information from previous arrests. Nor was she given access by the defence to the video of the interview of the suspect by police, all of which would have given her more information for her mental health evaluation.
More important, for the mental-health disorder defence to succeed, it has to be demonstrated that the individual is operating under delusions to an extent that they don't know what they are doing is wrong.
In this case, the suspect voiced his belief that he was trying to kill the victim as revenge for the murder of his father. There was no evidence he was operating under the assumption that murder was not wrong, or that stabbing was not wrong. Instead, the evidence showed he believed that he was justified in his action because he was taking revenge.
“The point is that if the person has a mental makeup which is such that he lacks even the capacity for rationality, then responsibility is (reduced),” the judge wrote. “If he has the capacity but simply fails to use it, responsibility is not precluded.”
In other words, even if he stabbed the victim as a result of hearing voices, that only gets him off the hook criminally if his mind was in a state where he no longer knew right from wrong.
In this case, the suspect fled the scene of the crime, an indication he knew he had done something wrong. And when arrested, he openly talked about the attack being revenge for his father's death.
That meant the suspect was aware of what he had done, and the reasons for it, and that it was not legal. Under Canadian law, the defence has to show that the accused, because of mental disorder, did not know what they were doing was wrong.
“I am not convinced, on a balance of probabilities, that any disordered condition of his mind deprived him of the ability to know right from wrong,” the judge wrote. “Responsibility is not excused in these circumstances.”
