Infanticide
233 A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.
Annotations | French
- Section 233
- Infanticide is a narrowly defined form of murder in which a mother causes the death of her newly-born child. Under section 2 of the Code, a newly-born child is a child under one-years old. The mother must: (1) wilfully cause the death or refrain from doing something to prevent the death, and (2) at the time of the wilful act or omission, the mother has a “disturbed mind” due to the effects of child birth or lactation: R v Borowiec, 2016 SCC 11 at para 13; R. v. L.B., 2011 ONCA 153at para. 58
- “Disturbed Mind”
- A disturbed mind is to be understood in its ordinary usage and meaning. It is not a legal term of art or defined in any statute. The word disturbed can mean someone who is “mentally agitated”, “mentally unstable”, or is experiencing “mental discomposure”. There is no requirement to prove a minimum threshold of a clinical diagnosis, or to prove a mental disorder under section 16 of the Code. The disturbance must be present at the time of acts or omissions causing the death of the child and must occur at a time that the accused has not recovered from giving birth or lactation. R v Borowiec, 2016 SCC 11 at para 35.
- The disturbance must be “by reason of” not being fully recovered from the effects of giving birth or from the effect of lactation after giving birth: R v Borowiec, 2016 SCC 11 at para 35. There is no requirement that the disturbance be the cause of the offence. Infanticide does not require any causal connection between the disturbance of the mind and the decision to do the thing that caused the child’s death: R v L.B., 2011 ONCA 153 at para 59; R v Borowiec, 2016 SCC at para 14.
- The Elements of the Offence
- Actus Reus
- The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that, (1) the actions or omissions of the mother actually caused the death of the child, (2) the mother’s mind was disturbed at the time of the unlawful act, and (3) at the time the mother’s mind was disturbed, she was operating under the effects of child birth or lactation. It does not need to be proven that the disturbed mind caused the act or omission that resulted in the death of the child: R v L.B., 2011 ONCA 153 at para 59.
- Mens Rea
- The Crown must establish beyond a reasonable doubt: (1) the intent for the underlying action or omission that caused the death, and (2) the objective foresight that the unlawful act gives rise to a risk of bodily harm that is neither trivial nor transitory. It does not require an intention to kill the child: R v L.B., 2011 ONCA 153 at paras 117, 121.
- Application as Offence or Defence or a Lesser and Included Offence
- Infanticide is a stand-alone offence and also a partial defence to murder or manslaughter: R. v. Borowiec, 2016 SCC 11 at para 15; R. v. L.B., 2011 ONCA 153 at paras 76, 99, 104.
- Where infanticide is used as a partial defence, defence must demonstrate that there is sufficient evidence to give that defence an air of reality. If that occurs, the onus is on the Crown to negate that defence beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Crown proves a culpable homicide, the jury must first consider infanticide. If the Crown is unable to negate at least one of the elements of infanticide, then the accused should be found not guilty of culpable homicide but guilty of infanticide. It is only where the Crown negates infanticide should there be a consideration of where the Crown has proved murder: R. v. Borowiec, 2016 SCC 11 at paras 15-17; R v L.B., 2011 ONCA 153 at para 139.