R v stone [1999] 2 scr 290

Abstract

The recent Canadian Supreme Court decision in R v Stone [1999] 2 SCR 290 goes some way toward clarifying the factors that need to be taken into account in distinguishing between mental disorder and non‐mental disorder automatism. A majority of five judges to four held that the burdon of proof in relation to both types of automatism is on the accussed to prove on the balance of probabilities. This is a radical departure from previous case law and part of the decision is criticised on a number of grounds. © 2000 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.