Difference between revisions of "Mental Health and the Criminal Code (14:IX)"

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 65: Line 65:
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 that they are unnecessarily punitive in nature. It has been 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, treat and manage NCMRD patients will be diminished. For a full discussion of these concerns, see Lisa Grantham’s “Bill C-14: A Step Backwards for the Rights of Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Canadian Criminal Justice System”. Despite the criticisms directed at Bill C-14, there have not been any significant changes to the Review Board or its authority since the new provisions came into force.
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 that they are unnecessarily punitive in nature. It has been 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, treat and manage NCMRD patients will be diminished. For a full discussion of these concerns, see Lisa Grantham’s “Bill C-14: A Step Backwards for the Rights of Mentally Disordered Offenders in the Canadian Criminal Justice System”. Despite the criticisms directed at Bill C-14, there have not been any significant changes to the Review Board or its authority since the new provisions came into force.


In British Columbia, there is no person currently designated as a “high-risk accused”. The only BC case involving a determination of “high-risk accused” status is [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc220/2010bcsc220.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20Schoenbo&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Schoenborn'', (2010) BSCS 220] [''Schoenborn'']. The accused was found NCRMD and was 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, the Attorney General of BC applied unsuccessfully to the BC Supreme Court to have Schoenborn designated as a “high-risk accused”.  After many days of evidence in court, the judge found that Schoenborn did not meet the criteria for a “high risk accused” ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc220/2010bcsc220.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20Schoenbo&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Schoenborn'', 2017 BCSC 1556].  
In British Columbia, there is no person currently designated as a “high-risk accused”. The only BC case involving a determination of “high-risk accused” status is [https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc220/2010bcsc220.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20Schoenbo&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Schoenborn'', (2010) BCSC 220] [''Schoenborn'']. The accused was found NCRMD and was 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, the Attorney General of BC applied unsuccessfully to the BC Supreme Court to have Schoenborn designated as a “high-risk accused”.  After many days of evidence in court, the judge found that Schoenborn did not meet the criteria for a “high risk accused” ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2010/2010bcsc220/2010bcsc220.html?autocompleteStr=R%20v%20Schoenbo&autocompletePos=1 ''R v Schoenborn'', 2017 BCSC 1556].  


There is some discrepancy between the provinces as to whether the “high-risk accused” designation can be applied retroactively. In British Columbia, it has been found that applying a retroactive “high risk” designation to trials that occurred before the legislation came into effect is not unconstitutional ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc1556/2017bcsc1556.html?resultIndex=3 ''Schoenborn'' 2015 BCSC 2254]). However, Quebec courts made the opposite determination in 2015 (see [https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq2299/2015qccq2299.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v CR'', 2015 JQ No 2448]).
There is some discrepancy between the provinces as to whether the “high-risk accused” designation can be applied retroactively. In British Columbia, it has been found that applying a retroactive “high risk” designation to trials that occurred before the legislation came into effect is not unconstitutional ([https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2017/2017bcsc1556/2017bcsc1556.html?resultIndex=3 ''Schoenborn'' 2015 BCSC 2254]). However, Quebec courts made the opposite determination in 2015 (see [https://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qccq/doc/2015/2015qccq2299/2015qccq2299.html?resultIndex=1 ''R v CR'', 2015 JQ No 2448]).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.clicklaw.bc.ca/index.php?title=Mental_Health_and_the_Criminal_Code_(14:IX)"