A man in B.C. was acquitted of sexual assault after a court ruled he was not criminally responsible due to extreme intoxication from psychedelic mushrooms.
Intoxication Defense Leads to Acquittal in Sexual Assault Case
A British Columbia man has been acquitted of multiple criminal charges, including sexual assault, after a court found that he was in a state of involuntary intoxication at the time of the incident. The ruling has reignited debate over the limits of criminal responsibility in cases involving psychedelic substances.
Events Leading to the Incident
The case stems from an event in March 2019, when the accused, then 30 years old, consumed magic mushrooms after using cannabis. He reportedly developed delusions involving a divine mission and left his home believing he would encounter someone selected by a higher power.
Instead, he approached a woman unknown to him and attempted to initiate physical contact. She resisted and sustained injuries during the altercation. The man removed his clothing and continued the assault until the woman escaped. Afterward, he harmed himself and later encountered officers who found him disoriented, naked, and injured.
Court Findings on Mental State
The court found that the man’s state of mind had been significantly altered by the substances he consumed. Medical and legal evaluations concluded that he entered a dissociative state commonly referred to as “automatism,” meaning he was not conscious of or in control of his actions during the incident.
As a result, the judge ruled that he was not criminally responsible under the law as it stood at the time. Charges including sexual assault and obstruction of justice were dismissed on the basis of his mental condition during the offence.
Legal Landscape and Constitutional Issues
At the time of the incident, existing federal law prevented individuals from using extreme intoxication as a legal defense in cases involving violent or sexual crimes. However, this provision was later ruled unconstitutional, leading to amendments that now allow such a defense under strict conditions.
These legal changes emphasize foreseeability—holding individuals responsible only if they could have reasonably predicted their substance use might lead to violent behaviour. In this case, the updated law did not apply retroactively, which influenced the court’s final decision.
Public and Legal Reactions
Legal experts have expressed concern about the broader implications of the ruling. Critics argue that allowing extreme intoxication as a defense in violent cases risks undermining accountability and retraumatizing victims. Others maintain that criminal law must continue to protect those who lack intent and awareness at the time of their actions.
The judge emphasized that the case occurred during a transitional period in the law and should not be interpreted as a precedent for future claims.
Ongoing Impact on the Victim and Accused
The woman involved in the incident continues to experience trauma and physical pain as a result of the assault. While the accused avoided a criminal conviction, the court noted that he will live with the consequences of his actions and the knowledge that they caused severe harm.
The case has raised enduring questions about how the justice system balances individual responsibility, public safety, and evolving scientific understanding of mental states induced by substances.
