Self induced drug intoxication does not support a not criminally responsible disposition

R. v. Evans, 2012 ONCA 412 is a helpful source for the principle that a self induced drug intoxication does not support a not criminally responsible disposition:

[12]       The respondent relies on R.v.Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 S.C.C. 58 and concedes that: (a) if the psychotic symptoms exhibited by the appellant at the time of the offence were the product of self-induced drug intoxication, this would not support a finding of NCRMD; and (b) an antisocial personality disorder alone does not meet the s. 16 criteria for a finding of NCRMD.

Analysis

[13]       An individual is presumed to be criminally responsible for his or her actions. Section 16(1) of the Code provides an exception to that general principle:

No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made 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.

[14]       A person found NCRMD may appeal on the basis that the verdict amounts to a "miscarriage of justice": s. 686(1)(a)(iii) of the Code.

[15]       In this case, the appellant was found to be NCRMD on the basis that he suffered from schizophrenia. That diagnosis has been ruled out by the appellant's treatment team. Additionally, Dr. Komer has testified that the "best fit" for the appellant at the time of the offence was a substance-induced psychosis.  The respondent concedes that a self-induced substance-induced psychosis would not support an NCRMD finding. In these circumstances, the NCRMD verdict cannot be sustained and should be set aside. It amounts to a miscarriage of justice.