Examining the High-Risk Accused Designation for Individuals Found Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder

In 2014, the Canadian government amended the Criminal Code, allowing courts to designate some individuals found not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder (NCRMD) as high-risk accused (HRA). As a result, individuals found HRA face significant new restrictions for transitioning through the forensic system. This study examined the relevance of the HRA designation by simulating the retrospective application of the legislative criteria to the National Trajectory Project (NTP) sample of 1,800 persons found NCRMD between 2000 and 2005 in Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, followed until 2008. Focusing on all individuals who had committed a serious contact offense (part of the first HRA criterion) in the NTP sample, we selected variables from the NTP database based on the remaining legislative criteria. We found that an HRA designation could apply to up to 1 in 4 individuals found NCRMD. The HRA group had been under the supervision of the Review Board for a longer period of time than had the non-HRA group. The HRA group reoffended at rates similar to those for the non-HRA group. Our results suggest that the HRA criteria do not identify a subgroup of persons found NCRMD who present an elevated risk of harm to others. Moreover, the findings suggest that NCRMD-accused with serious personal index offenses were already conservatively managed by the Review Boards. As such, a HRA designation based largely on offense severity is likely to miss its mark in terms of improving public safety. En 2014, le gouvernement du Canada a modifié le Code criminel de façon à permettre aux tribunaux de désigner « accusés à haut risque » (AHR) certains individus ayant reçu un verdict de non-responsabilité criminelle (VNRC) pour cause de troubles mentaux. Il en a résulté que les personnes désignées AHR connaissent d'importantes nouvelles restrictions durant leur transition au sein du système judiciaire. Cette étude examine la pertinence de la désignation AHR en simulant l'application rétrospective des critères législatifs à l'échantillon de 1800 personnes du Projet national des trajectoires (PNT) ayant reçu un VNRC pour cause de troubles mentaux, de 2000 à 2005, au Québec, en Ontario et en Colombie-Britannique, suivies jusqu'en 2008. Nous nous sommes limités à toutes les personnes ayant commis une grave infraction contre la personne (ce qui fait partie du premier critère de la désignation AHR) dans l'échantillon du PNT, et avons choisi des variables parmi la base de donn