5,416
edits
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
(2016 update) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
The review board, the prosecutor, or the accused may apply to order an assessment of the accused’s mental condition if necessary to make a recommendation for a stay of proceedings, or to make a disposition if no recent assessment has been made (s 672.121). A medical practitioner or any person designated by the Attorney General may also make an assessment. An assessment order cannot be used to detail an accused in custody unless it is necessary to assess the accused, or the accused is already in custody or it is otherwise required. | The review board, the prosecutor, or the accused may apply to order an assessment of the accused’s mental condition if necessary to make a recommendation for a stay of proceedings, or to make a disposition if no recent assessment has been made (s 672.121). A medical practitioner or any person designated by the Attorney General may also make an assessment. An assessment order cannot be used to detail an accused in custody unless it is necessary to assess the accused, or the accused is already in custody or it is otherwise required. | ||
Appeal for an order for a stay of proceedings may be allowed if the Court of Appeal finds the assessment order unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. A recent case (''R v J.J.G.'' (2014) BCSC 2497) considered the issue of whether statements made by an accused during the fitness to stand trial hearing are admissible in the trial. In this case, the accused made an admission of guilt during the fitness hearing. The court ruled that the statements were inadmissible at trial. | Appeal for an order for a stay of proceedings may be allowed if the Court of Appeal finds the assessment order unreasonable or unsupported by evidence. | ||
A recent case (''R v J.J.G.'' (2014) BCSC 2497) considered the issue of whether statements made by an accused during the fitness to stand trial hearing are admissible in the trial. In this case, the accused made an admission of guilt during the fitness hearing. The court ruled that the statements were inadmissible at trial. | |||
== B. Criminal Responsibility == | == B. Criminal Responsibility == | ||
Line 69: | Line 71: | ||
Significant criticism has been directed at these provisions prior to their coming into force, suggesting that they will do little to actually 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 actually 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. The BC Review Board is considering whether supervised outings would aid in his rehabilitation. However, there is a strong likelihood that the prosecution will make an application for Schoenborn’s designation as a high-risk accused. | 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. The BC Review Board is considering whether supervised outings would aid in his rehabilitation. However, there is a strong likelihood that the prosecution will make an application for Schoenborn’s designation as a high-risk accused. There is currently a ''Charter'' challenge due to the retroactive 'high risk' designation being applied to trials that happened before the legislation came into effect. | ||
Currently there is only one instance of the high-risk accused designation in Canada, applied in a decision of the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec in 2014 (2014 QCTAQ 09272). | Currently there is only one instance of the high-risk accused designation in Canada, applied in a decision of the Tribunal Administratif du Quebec in 2014 (2014 QCTAQ 09272). | ||
edits