R v Chaulk

R. v. Chaulk, [1990] 3 SCR 1303 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the interpretation and constitutionality of section 16(4) of the Criminal Code. Two accused individuals challenged the section as a violation of their right to the presumption of innocence. The Court upheld the section and provided a basis on which to interpret the section. The only defence raised at trial was insanity, but this defence was rejected by the jury. The defence can be raised in a number of ways. For example, the defence can show a lack of capacity to understand or focus. For a minor child, there is a presumption of criminal capacity. For children over the age of 14, incapacity is rebuttable. A claim of insanity undermines the voluntariness of either the actus mens rea or the reus. It can also provide an excuse to criminal conduct, where the intention is present, and where the defence is present. If the text doesn't mention something, leave it out.Summarize the following text using ONLY facts from it. Do NOT invent references, emails, or links.