Difference between revisions of "Mental Health and the Criminal Code (14:IX)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
The review board must review cases in which a person is found NCRMD at least once a year if the person is still detained in a mental facility or is fulfilling conditions pursuant to the disposition hearing (s 672.81). However, as a result of the operation of s 672.54, it is possible for individuals found NCRMD to be subject to prolonged or indeterminate detention or supervision by the review board, even for committing relatively minor offences. | The review board must review cases in which a person is found NCRMD at least once a year if the person is still detained in a mental facility or is fulfilling conditions pursuant to the disposition hearing (s 672.81). However, as a result of the operation of s 672.54, it is possible for individuals found NCRMD to be subject to prolonged or indeterminate detention or supervision by the review board, even for committing relatively minor offences. | ||
In response to a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of s 672.54, the Supreme Court in ''Winko v Director of Forensic Psychiatric Institute and the Attorney General of BC'', [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 [''Winko''] rejected arguments that s 672.54 violates the ''Charter'. According to ''Winko'', a “significant risk to the safety of the public” means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of extending beyond the mere trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. The process of determining whether the accused is a significant threat to public safety is non-adversarial, and the courts or review board may take into consideration a broad range of evidence, including the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, present medical condition, past offences, the accused’s plans for the future and any community support that exists. See ''Winko'' for a complete discussion of the application of s 672.54. Bill C-14, discussed fully below, codifies some of this decision, such as the definition of “significant harm”. | In response to a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of s 672.54, the Supreme Court in ''Winko v Director of Forensic Psychiatric Institute and the Attorney General of BC'', [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625 [''Winko''] rejected arguments that s 672.54 violates the ''Charter''. According to ''Winko'', a “significant risk to the safety of the public” means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of extending beyond the mere trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature. The process of determining whether the accused is a significant threat to public safety is non-adversarial, and the courts or review board may take into consideration a broad range of evidence, including the past and expected course of the accused’s treatment, present medical condition, past offences, the accused’s plans for the future and any community support that exists. See ''Winko'' for a complete discussion of the application of s 672.54. Bill C-14, discussed fully below, codifies some of this decision, such as the definition of “significant harm”. | ||