Bese v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute)

Bese v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute)

Read purposively, s.672.54 of the Criminal Code does not violate ss.7 or 15(1) of the Charter; the statute validly balances the liberty interests of NCR accused with public safety and does not impose an unconstitutional onus or discriminatory scheme, and requires a finding that the accused is not a significant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[1999] 2 SCR 722
Parties
Appellant: Gordon Wayne Bese; Respondent: Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute; Respondent: Attorney General of British Columbia
Court
Supreme Court of Canada
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
17 June 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal — Constitutional Challenge Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Charter S.7, Charter S.15(1), Not Criminally Responsible (ncr), Review Board Dispositions, Absolute Discharge Vs Conditional Discharge, Principles of Fundamental Justice, Equality Rights
Source Language
english
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Mental Health Law Charter S.7 Charter S.15(1) Not Criminally Responsible (ncr) Review Board Dispositions Absolute Discharge Vs Conditional Discharge +2 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Wayne Bese

Appellant

Director, Forensic Psychiatric Institute

Respondent

Attorney General of British Columbia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal — Constitutional Challenge Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms / On Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada From the British Columbia Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s.672.54 of the Criminal Code infringes s.15(1) by discriminating against persons found NCR on account of mental disorder
  2. 2 Whether s.672.54 infringes s.7 by depriving NCR persons of liberty and security contrary to principles of fundamental justice (vagueness, improper onus, overbreadth)
  3. 3 If infringements exist, whether they are justified under s.1

Ratio Decidendi

Read purposively, s.672.54 of the Criminal Code does not violate ss.7 or 15(1) of the Charter; the statute validly balances the liberty interests of NCR accused with public safety and does not impose an unconstitutional onus or discriminatory scheme, and requires a finding that the accused is not a significant threat before absolute discharge (per majority and concurring reasons).

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Answers to constitutional questions: s.672.54 does not violate s.15(1); s.672.54 does not violate s.7