The Girl on the Train and the Plea of Self-Defence

Spoiler alert – The Girl on the Train is out in theatres right now and if you haven’t yet seen it (or read the novel by Paula Hawkins) then you might not want to read this article. Without giving too much away, the movie features a scene in which a woman named Rachel kills her ex-husband Tom and then later tells the police that she did it in self-defence. While watching this scene I wondered: “If this happened in Canada, how would our laws apply? Would Rachel be successful in pleading self-defence?”

The Criminal Code of Canada states that a person is not guilty of an offence if they believe on reasonable grounds that [1] force is being used against them, [2] the act is committed for the purpose of defending or protecting themselves, and [3] the act committed is reasonable in the circumstances. In determining whether the act committed was reasonable, a court is to consider a list of factors about the nature of situation, how it occurred, who was involved, and what everyone knew or believed.

In the case of The Girl on the Train, Tom was chasing Rachel in a threatening manner; moments earlier he had thrown liquor in her face, knocked her unconscious by smashing a glass on her head, and choked her. Rachel was already running from Tom and had few other means available to respond to him if any. Tom had previously smashed a glass on her head. He was larger and stronger than Rachel. It is unlikely that she would have been able to defend herself against him without the aid of an implement. Rachel and Tom had previously been married for many years; during that time Tom was abusive towards her. Rachel responded to being chased by Tom by stabbing him in the neck; she did so knowing that he was unlawfully assaulting her but it is unlikely that she would have made such a consideration in the heat of the moment.

Based on this rundown, if Rachel were charged with killing Tom in Canada, it is likely that a court would allow her plea of self-defence in response to the charges. A court would likely find that she [1] believed on reasonable grounds that Tom was using force against her, [2] she stabbed him for the purpose of defending herself, and [3] it was reasonable to stab Tom in the circumstances because he was chasing her, likely with the intent to kill her, after assaulting her.

It is also worth mentioning that Tom’s wife Anna witnessed the occurrence and later corroborated Rachel’s account by telling the police that Tom would have killed Rachel had Rachel not killed him. This would also contribute to the likelihood that Rachel would succeed in pleading self-defence.

So what do you think? Was Rachel justified in killing Tom? Should the court consider any other factors to determine if an act committed in self-defence was reasonable? Do you agree with my assessment?

I look forward to any comments and hope that you enjoyed reading this article and watching The Girl on the Train.

Sean Dillman is a lawyer at McConnan Bion O’Connor & Peterson who works on real estate, business law, and estate planning issues (www.mcbop.com/sean-t-dillman). Although Sean specializes in solicitor’s work, he is happy to be in touch with you about any legal questions you may have.