Laeticia Eid, Amina Ali, Leisha Senko, Graham Glancy
{"title":"A Review of the Interpretation of the Canadian Test for Fitness to Stand Trial.","authors":"Laeticia Eid, Amina Ali, Leisha Senko, Graham Glancy","doi":"10.29158/JAAPL.240081-24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 1991, Canada introduced Bill C-30 to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder). Bill C-30 codified accumulated law specifying the criteria for fitness to stand trial. This test was clarified in a landmark case, <i>R v. Taylor</i>, which appeared to accept the limited cognitive capacity test. This explanation has guided the assessment of fitness to stand trial in courts across Canada for three decades. It was recently tested in an Ontario Court of Appeal case, <i>R v. Bharwani</i>, which ruled that the common interpretation of <i>Taylor</i> was insufficient. The court ruled there is one test for fitness, which is contextual and nuanced, and this test is spelled out in the Criminal Code. This will likely change the test and manner for assessing fitness to stand trial in Canada from how it has evolved over the last three decades.</p>","PeriodicalId":47554,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240081-24","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
In 1991, Canada introduced Bill C-30 to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder). Bill C-30 codified accumulated law specifying the criteria for fitness to stand trial. This test was clarified in a landmark case, R v. Taylor, which appeared to accept the limited cognitive capacity test. This explanation has guided the assessment of fitness to stand trial in courts across Canada for three decades. It was recently tested in an Ontario Court of Appeal case, R v. Bharwani, which ruled that the common interpretation of Taylor was insufficient. The court ruled there is one test for fitness, which is contextual and nuanced, and this test is spelled out in the Criminal Code. This will likely change the test and manner for assessing fitness to stand trial in Canada from how it has evolved over the last three decades.
1991 年，加拿大提出了 C-30 法案，以修订《刑法典》（精神失常）。C-30 法案将积累的法律编成法典，明确规定了接受审判的健康标准。这一检验标准在一个具有里程碑意义的案件 R v. Taylor 中得到了澄清，该案似乎接受了有限认知能力检验标准。三十年来，这一解释一直指导着加拿大各地法院对受审资格的评估。最近，安大略省上诉法院在 R v. Bharwani 一案中对这一解释进行了检验，裁定对泰勒的普通解释是不充分的。法院裁定有一种适合性检验标准，这种检验标准是根据具体情况和细微差别来确定的，《刑法典》对这一检验标准作了详细规定。这很可能会改变过去三十年来加拿大评估受审资格的标准和方式。
期刊介绍：
The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL, pronounced "apple") is an organization of psychiatrists dedicated to excellence in practice, teaching, and research in forensic psychiatry. Founded in 1969, AAPL currently has more than 1,500 members in North America and around the world.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
