Which of the following is NOT an acceptable defence of automatism?

Self-induced intoxication is not an acceptable defense of automatism in Canadian criminal law. Automatism refers to acts performed unconsciously or involuntarily, typically due to a condition such as sleepwalking or having an epileptic seizure. For a defense of automatism to be accepted, the condition must be a result of a non-volitional state, meaning the individual did not consciously choose to engage in the behavior that led to the crime.

In the case of self-induced intoxication, the individual has made a conscious decision to consume substances, leading to a state of impaired control. Courts generally do not permit intoxication—especially if self-induced—as a valid defense because it suggests that the individual retains some level of culpability for foreseeing the risk of criminal behavior while intoxicated. In contrast, sleepwalking, trauma-induced dissociation, and epileptic seizures may all be outside the control of the individual, allowing for a defense of automatism based on the absence of intention or awareness during the act.