R. v. Parks

Written by: Ayo Ibikunle

Case name: R. v. Parks

Neutral citation: R. v. Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871

Legal facts

When Kenneth Parks woke up inside his car, he had killed his mother-in-law and critically injured his father-in-law. In 1987, Parks entered his car, seemingly sleeping the entire time, drove 20km to his parents-in-law’s home and entered their house with a spare key previously given to him. Returning to his car and covered in blood, Parks went to the nearest police station and turned himself in, telling the police, “I think I have just killed two people.”

Parks was subsequently charged with first-degree murder under section 231 (1) of the Criminal Code for the murder of his mother-in-law and charged with attempted murder under section 239 (1) for his father-in-law.

Procedural Process

Although the Crown assumed it had a clear-cut case as Parks was a compulsive gambler and had previously embezzled money from his family, thus providing sufficient motive for his crime, the trial proved to be anything but clear-cut. At trial, Parks’ lawyers presented a defence of automatism. They claimed that throughout the crime and even afterwards when he turned himself in to the police, Parks was sleepwalking. According to his defence, Parks claimed to have always been a deep sleeper, suffering greatly when waking up. Additionally, he had endured a difficult and stressful year that affected his personal life greatly. Parks also had a family history of sleepwalking. Supported by the testimony of expert witnesses, the defence presented the evidence that Parks had been sleepwalking when he committed the crimes and sleepwalking does not suffice as a neurological, psychiatric or other illness. The trial judge directed the jury only to the automatism defence rather than a defence of insanity and Parks was acquitted by the jury of the first murder, then the second murder charge, and the judge acquitted the attempted murder charge. 

Court of Appeal

Upon appeal to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the court unanimously upheld the trial judge’s ruling, noting that the trial judge had properly directed the jury to non-insane automatism. The court noted that to treat sleepwalking as a disease of the mind, thus directing the jury to treat sleepwalking as a defence of insanity, the illness that impairs the mind must be an abnormal illness or a disorder. The court held that sleeping was not the cause of Parks' state of mind during the incident Instead, it was sleep, which was a normal condition. 

Supreme Court of Canada

With further appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Court finally decided on this issue of contention: whether sleepwalking is classified as non-insane automatism or a disease of the mind (insane automatism). The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the acquittal. Within the legal system, acquittal means not guilty of the crime charged. 

Reasoning

The Court reasoned that although the notion of “disease of the mind” is a legal term with a substantial medical, legal and policy component, medical opinions cannot be blindly relied on. In automatism cases, the "continuing danger" and "internal cause" are two approaches for the policy component. (1) First Theory: Any condition that is likely to display a recurring danger should be classified as insanity. (2) Second Theory: Calls for internal factors from the accused to lead to finding insanity. The Court highlighted that the Canadian justice system is predicated on punishing offenders who voluntarily act to commit a crime and no policy approaches sufficiently prevented a finding that Parks’ condition was an example of non-insane automatism. Additionally, the Court also found that the Crown failed to meet its burden of proof that sleepwalking stems from a disease of the mind, warranting the special verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.

Concurrences and Dissents

The justices concurred that the trial judge did not err in directing the jury to regard the defence as automatism rather than insanity and agreed with the reasoning mentioned above. However, Lamer C.J. and Cory J, dissenting in part, noted that some control should be charged through common law power to judges or magistrates to prevent the reoccurrence of a possible situation — where it is unclear what the proper classification of defence should be. 

Bibliography

CityNews Toronto. “Man Acquitted of Sleepwalking Murder Running for School Trustee in Durham,” October 27, 2006. https://toronto.citynews.ca/2006/10/27/man-acquitted-of-sleepwalking-murder-running-for-school-trustee-in-durham/.

Jones, Robert. “R V Parks Case Brief | CanLII Connects,” November 25, 2014. https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/31806.

Legislative Services Branch. “Consolidated Federal Laws of Canada, Criminal Code,” September 1, 2024. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-239.html.

“R. V. Parks - SCC Cases,” n.d. https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/907/index.do.