2,734
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mental Health and the Criminal Code (14:IX)"
From Clicklaw Wikibooks
Mental Health and the Criminal Code (14:IX) (view source)
Revision as of 22:29, 10 October 2022
, 22:29, 10 October 2022→C. Disposition Hearings After NCRMD
| Line 75: | Line 75: | ||
In response to a number of cases challenging the constitutionality of section 672.54, the Supreme Court in ''Winko'' rejected arguments that section 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. 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 consider a broad range of evidence. This includes the accused’s past and expected course of treatment, present medical condition, past offences, plans for the future and any community support that exists. See ''Winko'' for a detailed application of section 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 section 672.54, the Supreme Court in ''Winko'' rejected arguments that section 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. 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 consider a broad range of evidence. This includes the accused’s past and expected course of treatment, present medical condition, past offences, plans for the future and any community support that exists. See ''Winko'' for a detailed application of section 672.54. Bill C-14, discussed fully below, codifies some of this decision, such as the definition of “significant harm”. | ||
Two Supreme Court of Canada cases considered the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement of s 672.54. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc21/2004scc21.html?resultIndex=1 ''Pinet v St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital'', 2004 SCC 21], it was held that the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement applies not only to the bare choice among the three potential dispositions – absolute discharge, conditional discharge or custody in a designated hospital, but also to the particular conditions forming part of that disposition. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc20/2004scc20.html?resultIndex=1 ''Penetanguishene Mental Health | Two Supreme Court of Canada cases considered the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement of s 672.54. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc21/2004scc21.html?resultIndex=1 ''Pinet v St Thomas Psychiatric Hospital'', 2004 SCC 21], it was held that the “least onerous and least restrictive” requirement applies not only to the bare choice among the three potential dispositions – absolute discharge, conditional discharge or custody in a designated hospital, but also to the particular conditions forming part of that disposition. In [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2004/2004scc20/2004scc20.html?resultIndex=1 ''Penetanguishene Mental Health Centre v Ontario (Attorney General)'', 2004 SCC 20], the court decided that this applied not only to the choice of the order, but also to the choice of appropriate conditions attached to the order, consideration of public protection, and maximisation of the accused’s liberties. | ||
The Review Board’s powers were considered in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc7/2006scc7.html?resultIndex=1 ''Mazzei v BC (Director AFPS)'', [2006] SCC 7]. It has the power to place binding orders and conditions on any party to the Review Board hearing, including the director of the psychiatric hospital. The Review Board does not prescribe or administer treatment, but may supervise and require reconsideration of treatment provided. Treatment is incidental to the objectives and focus on public safety and reintegration, and the Review Board aids in only these two goals. | The Review Board’s powers were considered in [https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc7/2006scc7.html?resultIndex=1 ''Mazzei v BC (Director AFPS)'', [2006] SCC 7]. It has the power to place binding orders and conditions on any party to the Review Board hearing, including the director of the psychiatric hospital. The Review Board does not prescribe or administer treatment, but may supervise and require reconsideration of treatment provided. Treatment is incidental to the objectives and focus on public safety and reintegration, and the Review Board aids in only these two goals. | ||
