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

Then that person may be found not criminally responsible by reason of a mental disorder (NCRMD). This is a verdict distinct from either guilty or not guilty. If an accused is found NCRMD, the court can decide whether the accused will receive an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge, or be detained in a psychiatric hospital. Alternately, and more often in practice, the court can defer this decision to the British Columbia Review Board. If the accused is not found to be a significant threat to public safety (discussed below), he or she must be given an absolute discharge. When dealing with the question of the accused’ s mental capacity for criminal responsibility, the  court  has  much  the  same  power  to  order  an  assessment to  obtain  evidence  on  this question  (s  672.11(b))  as  it  does  with  respect  to  an  accused’ s  fitness  to  stand  trial.  Pre-trial detention of an accused while awaiting in-custody assessments was held to violate s 7 of the Charter by an Ontario court (R. v Hussein and Dwornik (2004), 191 C.C.C. (3d) 113 (O.S.C.J.)). However, R  v  Hussein was  not  followed  in  a  more  recent  Ontario  case  (Phaneuf  v  Ontario (2010), 104 O.R. (3d) 392). The Court ruled that the relevant provisions in the Criminal Code(specifically  s.672.11)  cannot  be  interpreted  as  requiring  that  accused  who  are  ordered assessed in  custody in  a  hospital  must  be  taken  immediately  to  that  hospital  and  cannot  be detained in a detention centre pending transfer to the hospital. Accordingly, it was held that R v Hussein was wrongly decided. The accused is always entitled to put mental capacity for criminal responsibility into issue by calling  evidence  relating  to  it.  The  Crown  is  allowed  to  adduce  evidence  on  the  accused’ s mental  capacity  for  criminal  responsibility  where  the  accused  has  raised  the  issue  or  has attempted to raise a reasonable doubt using a defence of non-mental disorder automatism (a mental  state lacking  the  voluntariness  to  commit  the crime). Where  the  accused  pleads  not guilty,  does  not  put  mental  capacity  in  issue  and  does  not  raise  the  defence  of  non-insane automatism,  the  court  may  allow  the  Crown  to  adduce  evidence  on  the  issue  of  mental capacity  only  after  it  has  been  determined  that  the  accused  committed  the  act  or  omission (R. vSwain(1991), 63 CCC (3d) 481 (SCC)).An accused is presumed to not suffer from a mental disorder that exempts him or her from criminal responsibility until the contrary is proven on a balance of probabilities (s 16(2)). An official finding that the accused is NCRMD will occur only when the Crown has otherwise proven the accused guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the mental disorder exempting the accused  from  criminal  responsibility  is  proven  on  a  balance  of  probabilities,  the  burden  of which is on the party that raises the issue (s 16(3)).