INTRODUCTION AND BRIEF DESCRIPTION
The court may order a mental health assessment for an accused person if their mental capacity for criminal intent is in question or if there are reasonable doubts about their criminal responsibility due to mental disorder.
SECTION WORDING
672.12(3) Where the prosecutor applies for an assessment in order to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the offence so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility, the court may only order the assessment if (a) the accused puts his or her mental capacity for criminal intent into issue; or (b) the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt that the accused is criminally responsible for the alleged offence, on account of mental disorder.
EXPLANATION
Section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the circumstances under which a court may order an assessment of an accused person's mental state. Specifically, the assessment is designed to determine whether the accused was suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the alleged offence that would render them exempt from criminal responsibility. This exemption is commonly referred to as a "not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder" (NCRMD) verdict. The section highlights two situations in which a court may order a mental assessment of the accused. The first is when the accused themselves raises doubts about their mental capacity for criminal intent, suggesting that they may have a mental disorder that impacted their ability to understand their actions. The second situation is when the prosecutor presents reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility on account of their mental disorder. In both cases, the court has the discretion to order an assessment. This section is important in ensuring that the criminal justice system takes into account the mental health of accused persons. If an accused is found to be NCRMD, they will not face criminal conviction, but instead will be subject to treatment and rehabilitation. In this way, the section is designed to protect the rights of accused persons with mental disorders while also maintaining public safety. Overall, section 672.12(3) plays a crucial role in ensuring that the criminal justice system operates justly and effectively for all Canadians.
COMMENTARY
Section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada concerns the assessment of individuals who may have committed an offence while suffering from a mental disorder. The assessment may be necessary to determine whether the accused is exempt from criminal responsibility due to the mental disorder. This section outlines the circumstances under which the court can order such an assessment. Firstly, the court can order the assessment if the accused puts his or her mental capacity for criminal intent into question. This means that if the accused claims that they did not have the mental capacity to understand the criminality of their actions, or that they were not aware that their actions were wrong, the court may order an assessment to determine the validity of this assertion. Secondly, if the prosecutor has reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not criminally responsible for the offence due to a mental disorder, the court may order an assessment. The prosecutor must provide evidence to the court to demonstrate that the accused's mental disorder may have contributed to their behaviour, and that they may not have had the capacity to understand the criminality of their actions. This section of the Criminal Code balances the need to protect society by holding individuals accountable for their actions with the recognition that some individuals may not have the capacity to understand the wrongfulness of their actions due to a mental disorder. By allowing assessments to take place in these circumstances, the legal system can ensure that individuals receive appropriate treatment and support, and that public safety is maintained. However, it is important to note that the assessment process itself can be complex and may involve significant resources. As a result, there is a need to ensure that assessments are ordered only in appropriate circumstances where there is a genuine concern that the accused's mental disorder may have contributed to their behaviour. In addition, there is a need for ongoing support and treatment for individuals who are found to be exempt from criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder. The criminal justice system is not always equipped to provide the necessary mental health care and support that these individuals require. Therefore, there is a need for collaboration between the legal system, mental health professionals, and other relevant stakeholders to ensure that individuals receive appropriate care and support, and that public safety is maintained. Overall, section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada is an important provision that recognizes the complex interplay between mental health and criminal behaviour. The provision ensures that assessments take place when there is a genuine concern that an individual's mental disorder may have contributed to their behaviour, while also balancing the need to uphold the principles of criminal responsibility and public safety.
STRATEGY
Section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada outlines the conditions under which a court may order an assessment of an accused person's mental state. The section provides that a court may only order the assessment if the accused puts their mental capacity for criminal intent into issue or if the prosecutor satisfies the court that there are reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder. When dealing with this section of the Criminal Code, there are several strategic considerations that legal professionals and mental health experts should bear in mind. The first strategic consideration is determining whether to raise the issue of mental capacity for criminal intent. When an accused person raises the issue of mental capacity for criminal intent, they are essentially arguing that they lacked the necessary intent to commit the alleged crime. This can be a potentially successful defense strategy, especially in cases where the accused has a history of mental illness or there are clear indications that their mental state played a significant role in the commission of the offense. The defense counsel may need to call upon the services of a mental health expert to testify to the accused's mental state at the time of the alleged offense, and to provide evidence of their incapacity to form intent as a result of their mental condition. The second strategic consideration is determining whether there are reasonable grounds to doubt the accused's criminal responsibility due to a mental disorder. In order to satisfy this requirement, the prosecutor must provide the court with evidence that the accused's mental state at the time of the offense was such that they did not appreciate the nature and quality of their actions, or did not realize that their actions were morally wrong. This can be a challenge, as the prosecutor will need to provide clear evidence of the accused's mental state at the time of the offense, which may require the services of a mental health expert. One potential strategy that can be employed by legal professionals is to seek a joint assessment of the accused's mental state. A joint assessment involves both the defense and the prosecution agreeing to have a mental health expert evaluate the accused's mental state. This can be useful in cases where there is limited evidence of the accused's mental state, or where the prosecution and defense are in disagreement about the accused's mental state. By agreeing to a joint assessment, both parties can benefit from the evaluation of a neutral expert, potentially helping to move the case toward a resolution. Another potential strategy that can be employed is to seek a stay of proceedings pending a mental health assessment. This involves the defense or the prosecution seeking a court order to pause the case until a mental health assessment can be completed. This can be useful in cases where there are concerns about the accused's mental state, but it is not clear whether they meet the threshold for an assessment under section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code. A stay of proceedings can allow for a thorough assessment to be conducted, potentially providing clarity on the accused's mental state and helping to move the case forward. Overall, there are several strategic considerations that legal professionals and mental health experts should bear in mind when dealing with section 672.12(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada. By carefully assessing the evidence and leveraging appropriate strategies, legal professionals can work to ensure that the accused's mental state is given due consideration in the criminal justice system.