R v Parks

R v Parks
Hearing: 1992-01-27
Judgment: 1992-08-27
Full case nameHer Majesty The Queen v Kenneth James Parks
Citations[1992] 2 S.C.R. 871
Docket No.22073
Prior historyCourt of Appeal for Ontario
RulingAppeal Dismissed
Court membership
Chief Justice: Antonio Lamer
Puisne Justices: Gérard La Forest, Claire L'Heureux-Dubé, John Sopinka, Charles Gonthier, Peter Cory, Beverley McLachlin, William Stevenson, Frank Iacobucci
Reasons given
MajorityLa Forest J, joined by L'Heureux‑Dubé J and Gonthier J
ConcurrenceMacLachlin J, joined by Iacobucci J
DissentLamer CJ, joined by Cory J
Stevenson J. took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied

R v Parks, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 871 is a leading Supreme Court of Canada decision on the criminal automatism defence.

In the early morning of May 24, 1987, Kenneth Parks drove 20 kilometres from Pickering, Ontario, to the house of his in-laws in Scarborough, Ontario. He entered their house with a key they had previously given him and used a tire iron to bludgeon his mother-in-law to death. He then turned on his father-in-law, attempting unsuccessfully to choke him to death. Covered with blood, Parks got back in his car and drove straight to a nearby police station and confessed, turning himself in, stating "I think I have just killed two people."

At trial, Parks argued that he was automatistic and not criminally liable. In his defence, a doctor testified as to his mental state at the time of the murder. From the doctor's evidence, it was determined that the accused was sleepwalking at the time of the incident, and that he was suffering from a disorder of sleep rather than neurological, psychiatric, or other illness. Five neurological experts also confirmed that he was sleepwalking during the time of the incident. The jury acquitted Parks.

The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the condition of sleepwalking can be classified as non-insane automatism or should be classified as "disease of the mind" (i.e. mental disorder automatism) and warrant a verdict of not guilty for reason of insanity. This distinction is a matter of law and decided by the judge.