BCIFV home > Newsletter > 2002 Archives > Spring 2002 articles

Domestic Violence and Anger

by Catherine Christopher

What is the relationship between domestic violence and anger? It is commonly thought that people who commit acts of domestic violence against their spouses or intimate partners do so because they are angry. This is not entirely accurate. Anger is not the cause of domestic violence, any more than mental illness, alcohol or substance abuse is a contributing factor at most. Isolated acts of abuse may appear to take place in anger; however, domestic violence occurs as a result of a complex set of behaviors. Research has confirmed that, for some people, that complex set of behaviors was learned during a childhood in which domestic violence was witnessed. Male children who either directly experienced or witnessed domestic violence are more likely to become involved in relationships as adults where they are abused than female children who have had no exposure to domestic violence.

If we accept that people who commit acts of domestic violence are angry at their spouses or intimate partners, the logical question that arises is to ask what the abused spouse or intimate partner did to make the spouse or intimate partner angry. By framing the discussion about domestic violence in terms of anger, the responsibility for the abusive conduct is shifted from the abuser to the abused. The real question is, why does a person who professes to love or care for another person, engage in abusive conduct? (This question was posed by Ann Jones in a documentary entitled When Women Kill, National Film Board of Canada, 1994).

Domestic violence is also referred to as domestic conflict, family violence, spousal assault, or wife abuse, among other terms. Domestic violence may consist of acts of physical, emotional or financial abuse, or any combination of these acts. If an act of abuse occurs more than once in a relationship, then the abusive acts are considered to establish a pattern of abuse. A 1996 survey conducted by Statistics Canada found that one in four women surveyed had been abused by their spouses or intimate partners. The situation is even more dire for Aboriginal women; a 1990 survey conducted by the Ontario Native Women's Association found that eight out of ten Aboriginal women surveyed had been abused at some point in their lives. It is important to note that men may be abused in relationships. Domestic violence also arises in relationships between same-sex partners.

How has the law addressed the relationship between domestic violence and anger? Criminal law charges may be laid when it is alleged that an offence pursuant to the Criminal Code has been committed against a spouse or intimate partner, regardless of whether anger was identified as a factor or not. Generally speaking, an offence under the Criminal Code has two elements, the impugned act and the intention to commit the impugned act. When criminal law charges have been laid as a result of circumstances involving domestic violence, any number of defenses may be advanced, including defenses based on the failure to form the intention to commit the impugned act. Is it possible for an accused person to be so angry that they were unable to form the intention to commit the act? It is important to note that there is no criminal law defence based on anger, although the existence of anger during the commission of an offence may be a consideration in some defences, such as automatism or provocation. This has caused some concern that a defence based on anger had been developing in the case law dealing with domestic violence. This was one of the considerations in R. v. Parent (2001) 154 C.C.C. (3rd) 1 (S.C.C.) commented on the appropriateness of a charge to the jury. Here, the accused shot his estranged wife during a chance meeting at a sale of property that was seized from the accused. The accused said that, just prior to shooting his estranged wife, she said to him: "I told you I could wipe you out" and he was so angry he did not know what he was doing when he shot her six times. The accused then left the building and went to a strip club for the afternoon. He then turned himself into the police.

Part of the issue in R. v. Parent revolved around the appropriateness of the trial judge's charge to the jury which is not reproduced here. However, the Crown argued that the charge created a new defence, based on anger. The Supreme Court of Canada agreed. Chief Justice McLaughlin stated that:

"The Crown argues that this passage creates a halfway house defence of anger, between non-mental disorder automatism and provocation. I agree. This passage suggests that anger, if sufficiently serious or intense, but not amounting to the defence of provocation, may reduce murder to manslaughter. It also suggests that anger, if sufficiently intense, may negate the criminal intention for murder. These connected propositions are not legally correct. Intense anger alone is insufficient to reduce murder to manslaughter.The passage cited overstates the effect of anger. Anger can play a role in reducing murder to manslaughter in connection with the defence of provocation. Anger is not a stand-alone defence. It may form part of the defence of provocation when all the requirements of that defence are met.Again, anger conceivably could, in extreme circumstances, cause someone to enter a state of automatism in which that person does not know what he or she is doing, thus negating the voluntary component of the actus reus."

In the criminal law forum, the case law has recognized that complex and often subtle dynamics of domestic violence. One example is the decision of the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench in R. v. Bleilie (2000 75 A.L.r. (3d) 150). In this case, the accused was charged with offences alleged to have been committed against his wife. He was denied bail at first and applied for a review of that decision. The Court held that it required certain information prior to making an informed decision about the accused's release or continued detention.

Although all crimes of violence and threats of violence are serious matters, those which occur in the context of familial or intimate relationships often present unique and difficult problems to the administration of justice. It has only been within the last decade that the courts have come to understand the peculiar and troubling dynamics found in relationships in which such crimes, generally referred to as spousal assaults, occur:

"Types of spousal assault vary greatly. Some offences are one time events such as an angry shove at the end of the relationship on the way to the divorce lawyer. Usually in such cases no bodily harm has occurred and it is unlikely that the event will be repeated. At the other end of the spectrum is the offender who repeatedly assaults and causes bodily harm as an expression of rage, jealousy, cruelty or control.Some victims thus feel unable, for financial, psychological, religious or other reasons, to end the relationship and opt instead to.withstand and even accept continuation of the abuse. Other victims respond by ending the relationship and turning to the law for justice and protection.Some offenders will not accept the loss of the relationship or the loss of control over the victim and respond by stalking or continuing their assaultive behavior".

"In my opinion, in cases of spousal or intimate partner assault, the Crown cannot address bail without having certain vital background information in hand, in addition to the circumstances of the offence and the criminal record of the accused. That includes, at a minimum, the following:

1. Whether there is a history of violence or abusive behavior, and, if so, details about the past abuse.

2. Whether the complainant fears further violence if the accused should be released and, if so, the basis of that fear.

3. The complainant's opinion as to the likelihood of the accused obeying terms of release, in particular no contact provisions; and

4. Whether the accused has any drug or alcohol problems, or a history of mental illness.

~ Catherine Christopher is a lawyer with the firm of Christopher and Christopher in Calgary, Alberta. Reprinted with permission from Law Now, a publication of the Legal Studies Program at the University of Alberta.