What Is R V. Parks Regarding The Defense Of Automatism

The purpose of this Briefing Note is to inform the Minister about the case of R v. Parks, regarding the defense of Automatism and the relevant laws and judgments applicable to this case. The issue proposed relies on the public concern of the possible repetition of misbehavior. May 1987, Kenneth James Parks killed his mother in law, Barbra-Ann and severely injured his father in law, Denis Woods. Parks confessed his offence after the incident took place. The charges of first degree murder and attempted murder went before the Supreme court of Canada, using the defense of Automatism. The evidence was presented to a jury that led to the acquittal of Parks. Medical evidence provided from five physicians were used to conclude Parks was asleep during the incident. Medical

Parks suffered from anxiety and insomnia because of his unemployment and gambling addiction. Defense of Automatism concludes one is not criminally responsible because the act was involuntary under s.16 of the criminal code and rests on the interpretation of what is considered “disease of the mind.” Per Lamer CJ. And Cory J testimony considered three factors: Parks was asleep/unconscious during the incident, sleepwalking is a sleep disorder not an illness and there is no medical treatment for this disorder aside from maintaining good health. Trait theory is a social cognitive approach; from a biological perspective that can be useful in predicting individual’s behaviors. ‘Disease of the mind’ is determined as the ‘internal makeup’ of an individual. Park’s family history indicates the biological aspect as they also suffer from sleep illnesses. According to Chief Justice Antonio Lamer, automatism is in fact not characterized as a mental disorder, but a disease of the mind. The respondent was declared Not Criminally Responsible on the account that he did not have the mens rea and actus rea