EVALUATING TRIBUNAL DECISIONS TO RELEASE OR DETAIN THOSE NOT CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF MENTAL DISORDER

Canadians adjudicated Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder (NCR) are detained in forensic psychiatric hospitals under a jurisdictional review board (RB) regulated by the Canadian Criminal Code. Research is limited on whether jurisdictional RB practices uphold the federally legislated balance between public safety and social reintegration. This research investigated whether federal law is applied consistently within the Alberta RB (ARB) system across three phases. Phase One tracked the trajectories and outcomes of NCR individuals through the ARB system, Phase Two determined the predictors of ARB decisions and whether they account for risk or legislatively relevant information, and Phase Three examined forensic risk assessment instruments and their utility to assist forensic decision-making. Instruments included the Level of Service – Case Management Inventory, Historical Clinical Risk Management 20 – Version 3, and the Revised Violence Risk Appraisal Guide. A retrospective archival longitudinal design was used to examine a NCR cohort (n = 109) that entered the ARB system between 2005 and 2010 and their respective hearings (n = 327). Results demonstrated that the ARB aligned their operational and management practices with federal legislation, but unique deviations contributed to novel trajectories and outcomes under RB supervision compared to other provinces. Dispositions varied as a function of risk level and were informed by clinician recommendations. Although risk-relevant information was supplied to the ARB by forensic professionals, key criminogenic risk/need factors as defined by the LS/CMI were absent in most clinical reports. ARB decision-making, however, was still strongly predicted by risk and legislatively relevant information associated with general and violent recidivism. As time under ARB supervision passed and release likelihoods increased, the ARB progressively favoured dynamic over static factors germane to treatment change and risk management. Evidence supported the validity of the study instruments in the appraisal and management of recidivism, especially for violence. Federal duties charged to jurisdictional RBs in the management of NCR populations demands an assiduous consideration of risk and legally relevant information. Forensic risk assessment instruments are reliable and valid aspects of traditional offender programming and the results suggested that they may assist with the appraisal and management of criminal risk anchored in evidence-based practice. Clinical and policy implications of this research for RBs and forensic professionals are discussed