Dr. Fred Shane

The appellant was convicted of second degree murder after shooting his wife.

At trial, he raised the defence of not criminally responsible (NCR) under s. 16 of the Criminal Code.

The defence called three psychiatrists who testified that the appellant suffered from a mental disorder, while the Crown called no psychiatric evidence.

The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing the jury's guilty verdict was unreasonable as it conflicted with the uncontradicted expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the jury was entitled to reject the factual underpinnings of the experts' opinions, which were based largely on the appellant's own statements, and to rely on other evidence surrounding the shooting to conclude the NCR defence was not established.

The appellant, a battered woman, shot and killed her common law partner in the back of the head as he left the room following an argument where he physically abused her and threatened to kill her.

At trial, a psychiatrist testified as an expert on battered woman syndrome to explain her state of mind and why she reasonably apprehended death or grievous bodily harm.

The jury acquitted the appellant, but the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial.

The Supreme Court of Canada allowed the appeal and restored the acquittal, holding that expert testimony on battered woman syndrome is admissible to assist the jury in assessing the reasonableness of a battered woman's apprehension of death and her belief that lethal force was necessary.