R V Tatton Case Brief

In the case of R. v Tatton, 2015 SCC 33, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 574, the accused, Mr. Tatton is responsible for causing a fire at his ex-girlfriends house, destroying all contents of the home. Mr. Tatton, was in a highly intoxicated state when he placed a pan of oil on the stove and set the burner to high. He than left the house for approximately 20 minutes, and upon his return he had realized that the home was bursting in flames. Tatton was charged for arson under S. 434 of the Criminal Code which states; “Every person who intentionally or recklessly causes damage by fire or explosion to property that is not wholly owned by that person is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years”. (Criminal

Therefore, he had a tendency of beginning to cook and later find himself passed out. He also periodically experienced blackouts where he would have no recollection regarding previous events. As he frequently consumed high levels of alcohol, one could argue that he has a larger tolerance when drinking. On the evening of the incident, Tatton was jealous and upset at his ex-girlfriend as she was in Kingston visiting friends. Furthermore, it could be understandable how with the mixture of alcohol and anger there could be reasons for potential retaliation against his ex-friend, and could explain whether his actions were truly accidental. Although, Tatton was acquitted and saved under the defence of intoxication, there was a similar incident known as the Daviault case where intoxication was not used as a viable defence in the courts. Daviault was charged with sexual assault against a women, and attempted to use his highly intoxicated mental state as a defence as he was unable to control his actions. Like Tatton, Daviault was known as an alcoholic and would binge drink. However, during his trial he was found guilty of a general offence and was punished for his actions as he suffered the consequences regarding sexual assault. The Court used two factors to help distinguish whether his crime was either general or specific; 1. The nature of the mental element, and 2. The social policy (Lexum). Therefore, crimes involving ones drunken mental state is purely a grey area as it is solely based on ones point of view. There is a lack of clarity around criminal intent as the “importance” of the mental element, along with the social policies have left questions unanswered. (Lexum) This proves that with two similar cases analyzed , there are not only complexities within the law, but rather inconsistencies as likes cases are being treated differently, and with that, results in a number of differed