R. v. A.D.H.

Listen to Podcast
Case Brief
Facts

A.D.H. gave birth in a retail store washroom, unaware she was pregnant. Believing the newborn was dead, she left the baby in the toilet. The child was found alive and resuscitated. A.D.H. was charged with unlawfully abandoning a child under 10, endangering his life, contrary to s. 218 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge acquitted her, finding the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that A.D.H. intended to abandon her child, as she believed the child was dead.

Issues

Does s. 218 of the Criminal Code, regarding child abandonment, require subjective or objective fault (mens rea)?

Legal Analysis

The majority of the Supreme Court held that s. 218 requires subjective fault. The text of the section, read in context, and the presumption that Parliament intends crimes to have a subjective fault element, support this conclusion. The words "abandon", "expose", and "wilful" suggest awareness of risk. The absence of language typically used for objective fault offences, such as references to "dangerous", "careless", or "reasonable" conduct, further supports the subjective fault requirement. While the purpose is child protection, subjective fault ensures the criminal law's reach is not too broad, punishing only those with a guilty mind. The minority argued for a penal negligence (objective) standard, particularly for those with a pre-existing duty to care for the child, to maintain consistency with s. 215 (failure to provide necessaries).

Decision

The Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Crown's appeal, upholding the acquittal of A.D.H. The Court found that the trial judge did not err in acquitting the respondent on the basis that the subjective fault requirement of s. 218 had not been proved.

Transcript
Okay, welcome back to Casepod, everyone! Today, we're diving into a truly heartbreaking case that hinges on a complex legal question: what does it *really* mean to abandon a child under the law? The case is about a woman, A.D.H., who unexpectedly gave birth in a store washroom. Thinking the newborn was deceased, she left the baby there. Miraculously, the child was found alive. A.D.H. was charged with unlawfully abandoning a child, endangering its life, under section 218 of the Criminal Code. The trial judge acquitted her, and the Crown appealed. The key question that made its way to the Supreme Court was: does this section of the Criminal Code require the prosecution to prove that the accused *intended* to abandon the child, or is it enough to show that a reasonable person would have understood the risks? In legal terms, are we talking about subjective or objective fault – *mens rea*? Now, this is where it gets interesting. The majority of the Supreme Court decided that section 218 *does* require subjective fault. They argued that the very wording of the law – "abandon," "expose," and "wilful" – suggests a level of awareness, a conscious choice. Think about it: "wilful" implies intention. Furthermore, the Court pointed out that the law *doesn't* use language typically found in objective fault offences. There's no mention of "dangerous" or "careless" conduct, or what a "reasonable" person would have done. This absence, they said, is significant. The Court also acknowledged that child protection is paramount. But, they argued, imposing a *subjective* fault standard prevents the criminal law from casting too wide a net. It ensures we're only punishing individuals who acted with a guilty mind – someone who *knew* they were abandoning a child. Now, the minority view was quite different. They believed that a *penal negligence* standard – an objective one – should apply. Especially, they argued, when someone has a pre-existing duty to care for the child. They wanted consistency with another section of the Criminal Code, section 215, which deals with failing to provide the necessaries of life. Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed the Crown’s appeal, upholding the original acquittal. The Court was satisfied that the trial judge didn't err in finding that the subjective fault requirement of section 218 hadn't been proven. So, what's the takeaway here? This case highlights the delicate balance courts must strike between protecting vulnerable individuals and ensuring that criminal law only punishes those who acted with a culpable mental state. It's a reminder that even in cases involving immense tragedy, the principles of justice demand a careful and nuanced approach.