According to R v Daviault [1994], under what condition can extreme intoxication be a defense?

In R v Daviault, the Supreme Court of Canada established that extreme intoxication can serve as a defense if it resembles a state of automatism or insanity. This means that if a person's level of intoxication is so profound that they cannot appreciate their actions or understand the nature of their conduct at the time of the offense, it may effectively negate their culpability. The reasoning behind this principle is rooted in the notion that, much like individuals who suffer from mental illnesses, those in a state of extreme intoxication may not possess the necessary mens rea, or guilty mind, to commit a crime.

The concept of automatism, which involves actions occurring without conscious control, draws parallels with states of severe intoxication, where an individual's ability to make rational decisions is severely compromised. If the intoxication is deemed to impair one’s ability to form intent or recognize the moral quality of their actions, it satisfies the conditions for invoking this defense. The court's ruling recognizes the complexity of human behavior under extreme conditions and underscores the importance of mental state in determining criminal responsibility.