R. v. Ducharme

R. v. Ducharme

Section 672.21 precludes using protected statements as substantive evidence of their truth, but does not preclude admission of a medical practitioner's opinion at a bail hearing nor using the accused's statements to establish the basis for that opinion; the weight of that opinion is for the court to determine. Applying that, Dr. Brunet's opinion regarding risk was admissible and entitled to considerable weight. On the facts—untreated mental illness, delusions, lack of community supports and risk to strangers—the court found a substantial likelihood of reoffending and denied judicial interim release under s.515(10)(b).

Citation
2008 NSPC 75
Parties
Crown: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Shane Ducharme
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
12 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Bail Hearing (judicial Interim Release); Fitness Assessment Completed
Outcome
Judicial interim release denied; accused remanded in custody.
Legal Topics
Bail, Admissibility of Psychiatric Assessments, Protected Statements S.672.21, Fitness to Stand Trial, Risk Assessment for Release
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Evidence Law Bail Admissibility of Psychiatric Assessments Protected Statements S.672.21 Fitness to Stand Trial Risk Assessment for Release

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Crown

Shane Ducharme

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Bail Hearing (judicial Interim Release); Fitness Assessment Completed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements made to a medical practitioner under s.672.11 (protected statements) are admissible at a bail hearing for the truth of their contents
  2. 2 Whether an expert medical opinion that relies on protected statements is admissible at a bail hearing to assess risk
  3. 3 Whether the accused should be denied judicial interim release under s.515(10)(b) on the ground of substantial likelihood of reoffending

Ratio Decidendi

Section 672.21 precludes using protected statements as substantive evidence of their truth, but does not preclude admission of a medical practitioner's opinion at a bail hearing nor using the accused's statements to establish the basis for that opinion; the weight of that opinion is for the court to determine. Applying that, Dr. Brunet's opinion regarding risk was admissible and entitled to considerable weight. On the facts—untreated mental illness, delusions, lack of community supports and risk to strangers—the court found a substantial likelihood of reoffending and denied judicial interim release under s.515(10)(b).

Court Disposition

Judicial interim release denied; accused remanded in custody.

Orders

  • Medical practitioner's opinion admissible for bail purposes; protected statements not admissible for their truth but may be used to establish the basis of the expert opinion.
  • Judicial interim release denied on secondary ground under s.515(10)(b); accused remanded in custody.