Two days after the sordid murder of a Louiseville police officer, experts point to major flaws in the Mental Disorders Review Board, which granted the suspect almost complete freedom despite posing a significant threat.
• Also read: The suspect had been screaming in his apartment for two days
• Also read: Killed in the line of duty, Maureen Breau wasn’t even supposed to be working as of Monday night
• Also read: Accused was found not guilty five times
“We completely escaped that,” says retired judge Nicole Gibeault, touched. I have read the report [de la Commission d’examen des troubles mentaux (CETM)] and someone will have to explain to me why that person was free. He clearly needed help. I can not believe it.”
In fact, in a decision issued a year ago, the Commission mentioned that he posed a “significant risk to public safety” and that he was downplaying his condition. The 35-year-old suffered from schizoaffective disorder, an amphetamine use disorder in remission and a cannabis use disorder. However, despite numerous violent and psychotic episodes, he denied his illness.
Overwhelmed
Professor Emmanuelle Bernheim, holder of the Canada Research Chair in Mental Health and Access to Justice, who has studied the CETM in depth by personally attending nearly a hundred hearings, believes that this administrative court is completely overwhelmed and holds rushed hearings.
“You don’t have time to consider all the elements,” she points out. The main piece of evidence is very often the treating psychiatrist’s report and is usually submitted at the time of the hearing. The defense doesn’t have time to prepare, it’s fast, they don’t take it seriously and just do it like that.
Ms. Bernheim also mentions that, contrary to what is practiced in the other Canadian provinces, the administrative judges present at the hearings are not necessarily familiar with the specific and complex reality of mental health.
“Apart from the obligatory presence of a psychiatrist, other judges are sometimes confused about the role of the commission. This creates gaps in some cases as people do not always have the legal background to interpret the situation correctly.
No prosecutor
Psychiatrist Gilles Chamberland considers the optional presence of a prosecutor at hearings to be problematic.
“When we prepare our reports, we highlight the risk that the patient may pose and then we have to answer the defense’s questions that [elle], challenges our judgment by implying that we judged too harshly. We end up in an awkward situation because we’re seen as the bad guys, but then we have to keep treating these patients.”
Few resources
The lawyer Jean-François Leroux, who specializes in health law, sees the problem in the lack of local resources to enforce the release conditions of the accused.
“That’s definitely part of the solution,” he believes. It’s one thing to put conditions on people, but when there’s no one checking whether people are consuming or not [elles] appear for their check-ups, [elles] will fall between two chairs and we may witness drama like the one we’re seeing right now.
The CETM declined our interview request on Wednesday.
Do you have any information about this story that you would like to share with us?
Do you have a scoop that might be of interest to our readers?
Write to us or call us directly at 1-800-63SCOOP.