Sentencing: Intoxication and Mental Illness

The fundamental principle of sentencing is that a sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

On its face this may seem simple. In practice this can be a challenge. No two offences or offenders come before the court in identical situations. There are simply so many variables involved in crafting a sentence that this can be one of the most challenging decisions a judge has to make.

The recent case of R. v. Badhesa provides an interesting example of some of the factors courts have to wrestle with, namely intoxication and mental illness. In that case the Court of Appeal reduced sentences for manslaughter and assault causing bodily harm.

If a sentence is going to be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender then it must consider what lead to the offences being committed

Is the accused someone who inflicted pain simply because he enjoyed doing so (thankfully this sort of offender is extremely rare) or were other factors at play?

The court described Mr. Badhesa, who had no prior history of violence as someone who, by all accounts, deeply loved his family members, centred his life around them and supported them. His wife told the court he was a kind-hearted person who cherished his mother (the victim of the manslaughter) and never had angry outbursts, under the influence of alcohol or otherwise. He wasn't jealous, suspicious or accusatory. However, he did have a history of serious depression. A forensic psychiatrist who assessed Mr. Badhesa opined that he was largely amnesic of the event and suffered from a serious mental illness which resulted in depressive episodes accompanied in their acute stages by major psychotic features.

Self-induced intoxication, they explained, is dangerous and irresponsible conduct that is unlikely to mitigate the sentence to be imposed. When the intoxication can be traced back to the mental illness, however, the analysis is different

The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge erred in how he considered the issues of intoxication and mental illness. When mental illness causes or contributes to the commission of an offence, it is a mitigating factor and a sentence may be reduced because the offender’s moral culpability is reduced. A sentencing judge should strive to determine the extent to which an offender’s mental illness contributed to the offending conduct, including any contribution to his or her self-induced intoxication.

When this approach is taken, the offender’s degree of responsibility can be properly assessed and a proportionate sentence can be crafted.