Self-induced extreme intoxication akin to automatism: A psycholegal tug of war.

ABSTRACT

Self-induced extreme intoxication akin to automatism (SIEA) is a complicated and controversial legal concept resistant to jurisdictional consensus. In the United States, SIEA has, at times, been considered under the concept of "settled insanity.". In the United Kingdom, the defense may be allowed for specific intent crimes, though the defendant's awareness of the foreseeability of risk is addressed at trial. In Canada, recent jurisprudence has led to legal and practice landscape changes related to self-induced extreme intoxication. Here, we provide an overview of automatism and an update on the Canadian perspective with a review of the facts and an analysis of the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision in R v. Brown, where the court permitted the SIEA defense to be utilized for general intent crimes and acquitted Matthew Winston Brown, a 26-year-old male with no history of mental illness, with respect to two counts of "break and enter" and one count of "aggravated assault." We review the social and legislative response to the changing case law as well as related implications for expert testimony, which may be provided by forensic mental health professionals. Given the judicial and legal implications of the recent changes for both perpetrators and victims of violent crime and given the dynamic international landscape on extreme intoxication in criminal law, the review is thought to be of interest to a broad category of stakeholders including policymakers and those working in forensic psychiatry and law.