R. v. Boisvert

R. v. Boisvert

The court held that the prior order directing a second psychiatric report with constraints on the materials to be considered was inappropriate and is withdrawn; experts must be permitted to conduct assessments using accepted clinical practices and collateral information, subject to challenge and weight assessment by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
2012 BCSC 2252
Parties
Crown: Regina; Accused: Perry Miles Boisvert; Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission: Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
6 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sexual Offences / Sentencing / Pre Sentencing Interlocutory (dispute Over Psychiatric Assessment)
Outcome
Previous order for a second psychiatric report with constraints withdrawn; original psychiatric report admitted for use at sentencing; authors to be made available for cross-examination
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Expert Evidence, Use of Uncharged or Acquitted Allegations in Assessments, Cross Examination of Experts, Publication Ban
Source Language
english
Criminal Law Forensic Psychiatry Evidence Sentencing Expert Evidence Use of Uncharged or Acquitted Allegations in Assessments Cross Examination of Experts Publication Ban

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Crown

Perry Miles Boisvert

Accused

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sexual Offences / Sentencing / Pre Sentencing Interlocutory (dispute Over Psychiatric Assessment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court may order a second psychiatric report that excludes consideration of collateral allegations that did not result in conviction or resulted in acquittal
  2. 2 Whether forensic psychiatrists/psychologists are subject to judicial direction regarding the materials they may consider in forming opinions
  3. 3 Whether experts are triers of fact or witnesses and the legal consequences of that distinction

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the prior order directing a second psychiatric report with constraints on the materials to be considered was inappropriate and is withdrawn; experts must be permitted to conduct assessments using accepted clinical practices and collateral information, subject to challenge and weight assessment by the court, and the original report may stand with opportunities for cross-examination of its authors.

Court Disposition

Previous order for a second psychiatric report with constraints withdrawn; original psychiatric report admitted for use at sentencing; authors to be made available for cross-examination

Orders

  • Order withdrawing the earlier direction for a second constrained psychiatric/psychological report
  • Authors of the psychiatric report to be made available for cross-examination at the sentencing continuation and may attend by video