On January 13, 2018, Matthew Brown got high on magic mushrooms, stripped naked, then broke into the home of Professor Janet Hamnett. He beat her with a broom handle so badly he was covered in her blood when he ran from Hamnett’s home.
In a decision I can only describe is repulsive, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Michele Hollins refused to hold Matthew Brown responsible for his actions.
In any normal world, Mathew Brown would be convicted for his heinous actions regardless of whether he was drunk, high or sober.
In this Trudeau-appointed judge’s eyes, violence against women is okay so long as you’re really, really high. We’re left hoping she believes it’s not okay to beat women when the abuser is sober, but we must wait for some future court decision from Justice Michele Hollins to know for certain.
Defence lawyer Sean Fagan had the audacity to claim his client’s integrity and non-violent character made him “a pleasure to defend.”
Integrity? Non-violent character?
“[Matthew Brown] consumed about four grams of magic mushrooms at a friend’s house party that night, before he stripped naked and ran outside in frigid temperatures.
“He smashed his way into the home of Janet Hamnett, an MRU professor whom he had never met, and beat her with a broken broom handle, causing severe injuries to her hands and arms.”
After leaving his battered and bleeding victim on the floor, Brown left, tried to break into a few cars and finally broke into a second home where police finally arrested him.
According to Sean Fagan, this series of events is a clear demonstration of Matthew Brown’s integrity and non-violent character.
Matthew Brown is responsible for his actions that night, from the time he decided to get high until he was arrested sitting on the bathroom floor of the second home he broke into.
That our courts rule otherwise is repulsive but, and I can’t even believe I’m saying this, not unexpected.
It Gets Worse
In any normal world, Mathew Brown would be held responsible for his actions whether he was drunk, high or sober.
We don’t live in a normal world. We live in a world governed by the lunacy of the 2018 Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruling R. v. McKaw and before it, the 1994 Supreme Court of Canada decision R. v. Daviault.
These decisions hold a person is not criminally responsible for their actions when they choose to become extremely intoxicated.
From a case law summary of R. v. McCaw:
In R. v. Daviault,  3 S.C.R. 63, the Supreme Court held that extreme intoxication tantamount to a state of automatism can negative the intent required for general intent offences…
…claiming otherwise infringed liberty and the principles of fundamental justice (s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms), as well as the presumption of innocence (guaranteed under s. 11(d) of the Charter).
All that boils down to mean if you get really, really intoxicated you can do whatever stupid thing comes into your head and no court in the land will hold you accountable.
Does your head hurt yet? If so, you’re not alone.
Robert Sciuk says
Ontario’s supreme court has ruled (Gladu) that race, ethnicity and culture can be mitigating factors in violent crimes. It appears that not being responsible for one’s actions is a Liberal mantra … which explains a lot in terms of our current leadership, it seems.
Colin Murphy says
Armed self defence is the answer to this BS. Double tap and society would not have to worry about TPOS ever again. But not in Canada you say, more’s the pity!
Brian Sumner says
Regarding Judge Hollins decision in the magic mushroom case it appears rather certain to most of us that the person who made the decision to become extremely intoxicated is still responsible for their actions. We follow this principle in drunk driving cases but not apparently in assault/murder cases. Further, we all know that canuckistan’s “justice system” is corrupt. In some cases, really corrupt. My recommendation is that when the magic mushroom perp gets out of prison – if sent there at all – some friends of the victim, (or indeed just some solid citizens) some good old boys as it were, take him for a little corrective interview somewhere out in the country. In a dark and secluded area. And then make sure he will never, ever be the same again. Justice is served!
Andrey Piskunov says
How violence against women is different from any other violence? You guys have to get over the fact that feminism has achieved “the perfect equality” and it’s 2020 already. So violence against women in no different from violence against men. Unless we agree that women are the privileged class, do we? And that’s actually true according to family courts, judges giving out restraining orders when only evidence is her word. Basically this has ended up as “guilty until proven innocent” model. Duluth model.