This appeal addressed the proper judicial disposition when evidence of mental disorder exists but the defence of not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) has not been pleaded.
The trial judge had acquitted the respondent of assault with a weapon, relying on lay witness testimony about his mental condition to find a lack of general intent.
The appellate court found that the trial judge erred by considering mental condition evidence to negate mens rea before proving the essential elements of the offence and by relying on lay opinion.
The court reiterated that mental disorder evidence cannot negate mens rea for general intent offences and that the NCRMD defence must be properly raised.
The appeal was allowed, the acquittal set aside, and a new trial ordered.
