R v Stone

R v Stone is a significant case in Canadian criminal law, specifically relating to the defence of automatism. The case, formally cited as R. v. Stone, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 290, involved the accused, Stone, who stabbed his wife after she verbally abused him. He claimed he was in a state of automatism, arguing that he had no conscious control over his actions.

The central issue in R v Stone was whether Stone's automatism was non-insane or insane automatism. This distinction is crucial because non-insane automatism results in a complete acquittal, while insane automatism leads to a special verdict of "not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder" (NCRMD), potentially resulting in detention in a mental health facility.

The Supreme Court of Canada established a two-stage test to determine whether automatism is insane or non-insane.

• Stage 1: The trial judge must determine whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a properly instructed jury could find that the accused acted in a state of automatism. This involves considering expert psychiatric evidence and the circumstances surrounding the alleged automatistic state.

• Stage 2: If the judge finds sufficient evidence of automatism, the judge must determine whether the automatism is insane or non-insane. This involves considering:

  • Internal Cause Factor: Was the automatism caused by a mental disorder (a disease of the mind) arising from an internal cause? If so, it is likely to be considered insane automatism.
  • Continuing Danger Factor: Does the condition that caused the automatism pose a continuing danger to the public? This is considered in conjunction with the internal cause.
  • Policy Considerations: Broader policy considerations are also taken into account to ensure the integrity of the justice system and public safety.

In R v Stone, the Supreme Court held that Stone's automatism stemmed from an internal cause (his personality traits and the stressful situation), posed a continuing danger, and therefore constituted insane automatism. Stone was ultimately found NCRMD.

The R v Stone decision remains a cornerstone in Canadian law concerning automatism, shaping the way courts assess and categorize automatistic states in criminal cases. It clarifies the criteria for distinguishing between insane and non-insane automatism and highlights the importance of considering both medical and policy factors in these complex cases. The decision emphasizes the protection of the public and the need to ensure appropriate treatment and supervision for individuals who commit violent acts while suffering from a mental disorder.