Difference between revisions of "Mental Health and the Criminal Code (14:IX)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Changed title: "Recent Changes") |
(Changed last two paragraphs) |
||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
Significant criticism has been directed at these provisions prior to their coming into force, suggesting that they will do little to improve the rights and safety of victims, and are unnecessarily punitive in nature. Furthermore, it was argued that by placing the “high-risk” designation in the hands of the courts, the ability for the Review Board and hospitals to appropriately assist and manage NCMRD patients will be diminished. For a full discussion of these concerns, see Lisa Grantham, “Bill C-14: A Step Backwards for the Rights of Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Canadian Criminal Justice System”. However, since the provisions came into force, there have not been any significant changes at the Review Board level yet. | Significant criticism has been directed at these provisions prior to their coming into force, suggesting that they will do little to improve the rights and safety of victims, and are unnecessarily punitive in nature. Furthermore, it was argued that by placing the “high-risk” designation in the hands of the courts, the ability for the Review Board and hospitals to appropriately assist and manage NCMRD patients will be diminished. For a full discussion of these concerns, see Lisa Grantham, “Bill C-14: A Step Backwards for the Rights of Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Canadian Criminal Justice System”. However, since the provisions came into force, there have not been any significant changes at the Review Board level yet. | ||
In BC there is no person currently designated as a high-risk accused. As of April 2015, the only BC case involving a determination of high-risk accused status is ''R v Schoenborn'' (2010) BSCS 220. The accused was found NCRMD and is currently held in a mental health facility. In April 2015, the BC Review Board granted Schoenborn escorted community access, at the discretion of the Director of the facility, in order to aid his rehabilitation. | In BC there is no person currently designated as a high-risk accused. As of April 2015, the only BC case involving a determination of high-risk accused status is ''R v Schoenborn'' (2010) BSCS 220. The accused was found NCRMD and is currently held in a mental health facility. In April 2015, the BC Review Board granted Schoenborn escorted community access, at the discretion of the Director of the facility, in order to aid his rehabilitation. In 2017, Schoenborn was found not to be a high-risk accused (''R v Schoenborn'', 2017 BSCS 1556). | ||
There is some discrepancy between the provinces as to whether one can be classified as a high-risk accused retroactively. While in British Columbia it has found that retroactive “high risk” designation being applied to trials that happened before the legislation came into effect is not unconstitutional (see ''R v Schoenborn'', 2015 BSCS 2254), in Quebec it was decided that a retroactive application is unconstitutional (see R v C.R., 2015 J.Q. no 2448). | |||
{{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | {{LSLAP Manual Navbox|type=chapters8-14}} | ||