Forensic Psychiatry. ca

Home             ** The content on this site is being developed over time, thus not all sections will have text yet. If there are topics of interest that are not listed here, you are welcome to foward suggestions for consideration.

Introduction -   An
Overview of Forensic
Mental Health

• - Autoerotic Asphyxia
• - Child Molestation
• - Criminal Responsibility
• - Dangerous / Longterm Offenders
• - Elderly Offenders
• - Expert Witness
• - Fitness To Stand Trial
• - Impulse Control Disorders
• - Mental Health Law
• - Paraphilias
• - Probation & Parole
• - Review Boards
• - Risk Assessment
• - Risk Instruments
• - Risk Management
• - Risk Research
• - Sex Offending
•  Other:
• Related Links
• Use Of This Site

Overview
At one time, the supervision of these patients/individuals was under the direct authority of the Lieutenant Governor of each province. As a result of changes in the Criminal Code of Canada in 1992, this responsibility was devolved to the provincial Review Boards, the decisions of which could now be appealed directly to the Courts of Appeal.

Under the Criminal Code of Canada, each province must establish Review Boards to oversee the rehabilitation of individuals found Not Criminally Responsible or Unfit to Stand Trial.


Purpose of the Review Board
The purpose of these Review Boards is to review the status and conditions of accused persons found Unfit to Stand Trial or Not Criminally Responsible and held under the Mental Disorder Provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada. (note: "accused person" is the legal term used in the CCC)

Board Composition
Each Board is composed of a Chair or Alternate Chair, who is usually a judge or senior lawyer, at least one psychiatrist, one individual who is a lawyer in that particular province, one individual licensed to practice psychology or medicine, and one individual who is a lay person. The quorum consists of three members, one of which must be a psychiatrist and the other, a lawyer. Different jurisdictions use different combinations, with some provinces having a full five member panel whereas others use typically only three members.

Appointments to, and administration of, the Review Boards is a provincial responsibility.

Each Review Board retains jurisdiction over the accused only while they present “a significant threat to the safety of the public”. The implications of these words have been judicially interpreted, most recently by the Supreme Court of Canada in R v Winko . Now, the burden is on the hospital housing the forensic patient to justify the individual’s continued detention as being a significant threat. The terms have been held to mean at ‘significant likelihood of creating a criminal offence’ and this need not be violent. Thus, an individual who repeatedly made threats but did not commit a violent act, could continue to be detained under the legislation.

Hearings
Hearings are held at least annually for each person detained under the the Review Board's jurisdiction ("the accused"). The hearings are usually held at the hospital site where the individual is detained. The major parties present are the detained individual, hospital representatives, and a representative from the Attorney General. Hearings are open to the public although this may be waived by the Review Board or Court.

Possible Board Outcomes
The Review Board records written decisions about each case. The outcomes might be Absolute Discharge, Conditional Discharge, or various Detention Dispositions which refer to level of security, hospital, or access to community privileges.

Consideration Issues for Review Boards*
The primary concern for the Review Boards in their deliberations is the consideration of the level of risk to the safety of the public. They consider a wide range of issues in their deliberations. These may include such things as:

Ontario Review Board

---

© Stephen Hucker, MB,BS, FRCP(C), FRCPsych 2003 - 2011
This material is provided for personal use only. Any other use is strictly forbidden without the express written permission of the author