A Canadian Example of Insanity Defence Reform: Accused Found Not Criminally Responsible Before and After the Winko Decision

Abstract

This article reports on the effects of legislative reform on mentally disordered accused persons absolutely discharged from Review Boards in three Canadian jurisdictions. The sample included 592 accused randomly selected from all persons absolutely discharged in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec. Of these, 291 were absolutely discharged by provincial Review Boards in the three-year period prior to the landmark Winko decision and 301 in the three-year period following the decision. Analyses of information collected from Review Board files revealed few significant post-Winko changes, instead highlighting differences in practice and policy between jurisdictions. The only observed change in characteristics across jurisdictions was an increase in the prevalence of substance abuse disorders following Winko. No significant effects on outcomes were observed. Although the long-term effects of Winko remain to be seen, the effects appear to be minimal to date. Treating the Winko decision as a case example, discussion focuses on how findings of the present study may contribute to our understanding of the impact of policy and legislative reform on mentally disordered accused.

This research was funded by the Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice Canada. The first author thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their support of her research. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Gilles Côté, Éric Skulski, and Adamira Tijerino who oversaw data collection and preliminary analyses, as well as the research assistance of Kaylie Maughan. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of the BC Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton Forensic Service, the Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal, and the Ministry of the Attorney General of BC, for which the authors are extremely grateful. Earlier drafts of this manuscript were greatly improved by the comments of Don Read, Christopher Webster, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, Nicole Crutcher, two anonymous reviewers, as well the editorial comments of Jim Ogloff.

This research was funded by the Department of Justice Canada, Research and Statistics Division. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department of Justice Canada. The first author thanks the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for their support of her research. The authors acknowledge the contributions of Gilles Côté, Éric Skulski, and Adamira Tijerino who oversaw data collection and preliminary analyses, as well as the research assistance of Kaylie Maughan. This research would not have been possible without the cooperation and support of the BC Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton Forensic Service, the Institut Philippe Pinel de Montréal, and the Ministry of the Attorney General of BC, for which the authors are extremely grateful. Earlier drafts of this manuscript were greatly improved by the comments of Don Read, Christopher Webster, Suzanne Wallace-Capretta, Nicole Crutcher, two anonymous reviewers, as well the editorial comments of Jim Ogloff.