International Law

R. v. Luedecke

Mr. Luedecke was (remarkably) acquitted at trial after claiming he sexually assaulted a young woman in his sleep (the result of a condition known as “sexsomnia” — see some earlier commentary here). It was held that his actions were involuntary and they were not the product of a mental disorder. The Ontario Court of Appeal has ordered a new trial on the single issue of whether the automatism should have resulted in a verdict of not guilty or a NCR-MD (not criminally responsile on account of mental disorder) verdict.

I am satisfied that the trial judge failed to appreciate the significance of the hereditary nature of the respondent?s condition, failed to give effect to the respondent?s well established history of sexsomnia, and failed to appreciate the significance of the strong likelihood of the recurrence of the events that triggered his sexsomnia. The trial judge also failed to appreciate that Dr. Shapiro?s medical opinion that parasomnia did not constitute a mental disorder was largely irrelevant to the determination of whether, for policy reasons, the condition should be classified legally as a disease of the mind. These errors led to a failure to apply the proper legal standard when characterizing the respondent?s automatism.

NCR-MD is not a medical standard:

an NCR-MD verdict is not a medical diagnosis of the respondent. No one suggests that he is mentally ill. The criminal law uses the concept of mental disorder very differently than the medical profession. The concept of a mental disorder in the criminal law is used to describe those accused who have committed criminal acts but because of some abnormal mental state are unable to conform their behaviour to the dictates of the criminal law. A determination that an accused suffers from a mental disorder is more a reflection of the need for a further inquiry into the dangerousness of that accused than it is an assessment of his or her medical condition.

As pointed out in the analysis, “Social defence concerns, inevitably present in such cases, must to a large degree drive the analysis.”

Full post as published by Criminal Review on October 17, 2008 (boomark / email).