R. v. Hood

R. v. Hood

Judge found the medical diagnosis of Bipolar Mood Disorder-Type 1 was established but, on balance of probabilities, the Crown's prima facie case was not rebutted as to mental disorder at the time of the offences; expert evidence was scrutinized and discounted due to reliability concerns, accused's selective disclosure and failure to provide direct testimony, and the court concluded she retained the capacity required under s.16 and therefore convicted on the amended and specified counts.

Citation
2016 NSPC 19
Parties
Prosecution: Her Majesty the Queen; Accused: Carolyn Amy Hood
Court
Nova Scotia Provincial Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 April 2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Trial Verdict on Criminal Responsibility
Outcome
Accused found guilty on four amended and specified counts; two counts dismissed; publication restriction for complainants maintained
Legal Topics
Not Criminally Responsible (ncr) / Section 16, Bipolar Mood Disorder Type 1, Expert Evidence and Gatekeeping, Luring and Sexual Exploitation of Minors, Burden and Standard of Proof
Source Language
English
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Evidence Forensic Psychiatry Sexual Offences Not Criminally Responsible (ncr) / Section 16 Bipolar Mood Disorder Type 1 Expert Evidence and Gatekeeping +2 more

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Her Majesty the Queen

Prosecution

Carolyn Amy Hood

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Trial Verdict on Criminal Responsibility

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether accused was not criminally responsible under s.16 Criminal Code
  2. 2 Whether Bipolar Mood Disorder-Type 1 constituted a disease of the mind at the time of the offences
  3. 3 Whether the disease rendered the accused incapable of appreciating nature and quality of acts or of knowing they were morally wrong

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found the medical diagnosis of Bipolar Mood Disorder-Type 1 was established but, on balance of probabilities, the Crown's prima facie case was not rebutted as to mental disorder at the time of the offences; expert evidence was scrutinized and discounted due to reliability concerns, accused's selective disclosure and failure to provide direct testimony, and the court concluded she retained the capacity required under s.16 and therefore convicted on the amended and specified counts.

Court Disposition

Accused found guilty on four amended and specified counts; two counts dismissed; publication restriction for complainants maintained

Orders

  • Convicted: Case 2692944 (luring G. under 18 by telecommunication) - guilty
  • Convicted: Case 2692945 (sexual exploitation of G.) - guilty