R. v. Reid, 2013 BCSC 2229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: R. v. Reid, 2013 BCSC 2229 Date: 20131125 Docket: 36507-2 Registry: Prince George Regina v. Madison Reid Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman (appearing via teleconference) Oral Ruling re Pre-Trial Detention and Change of Venue In Chambers Counsel for the Crown: S. Keyes Counsel for the Accused appearing via teleconference: D. Kontou Counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae : K. Jones Place and Date of Hearing: Prince George, B.C. November 25, 2013 Place and Date of Ruling: Prince George, B.C. November 25, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Ms.

Reid has a history of mental illness and that has manifested itself from time to time since her arrest on this charge. She has been in and out of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital since then as well, because while in, she takes medication and becomes fit, but while out, there is a history of her not taking her medication and she is rendered into a state of unfitness. There has not been an order of being unfit, but there have been psychiatric opinions. [ 2 ] The most recent trial date for this matter was to have been November 18th last.

It had to be adjourned because the most recent psychiatric assessment at that time suggested she was unfit. Instead of trial, the parties sought a further, and I ordered a further, 60-day assessment. It determined that she is now fit, or at least I draw that inference from the report, and Mr.

Kontou confirms that he is satisfied that he is now able to get instructions. [ 3 ] The difficulty is that if I conclude she is fit and do no more than that, she is going to be released from the psychiatric hospital and the same problem will likely arise; she will be on a treadmill of in and out, may never have a trial because of it, and that would be unfair to her and to the public. [ 4 ] The obvious thing to do would be to order that she stay in the hospital, but the precise wording of the Criminal Code

section that deals with that does not actually deal with the situation before me.

Section 672.29 indicates that the court has jurisdiction to order that she be detained in a hospital until the completion of the trial if there has been a "verdict that the accused is fit to stand trial". In this case, there has been no verdict, there has been no hearing. A hearing is not necessary and I will not order one under 672.23, because that requires that there be reasonable grounds to believe that she is unfit. There are not currently such reasonable grounds because of the current, most recent psychiatric report, and because of what Mr.

Kontou has told me. [ 5 ] Consequently, although there is a determination that she is fit, based on the report and what Mr. Kontou has told me, it is not a verdict as required by 672.29. In my view, that is an oversight by the drafters. The

section leaves Ms. Reid, if the

section cannot be remedied in some way, with an inability to be in the same position that she would be in if there were a verdict of being fit. [ 6 ] In my view, it is a case that requires the exercise of my inherent jurisdiction in order to fill that lacuna and ensure that ultimately she will remain fit and will be able to have a fair trial in the fullness of time. Both Ms. Reid and the public are entitled to that fair trial, and the proper administration of justice demands it.

It appears that the exercise of my inherent jurisdiction is the only way this result can be achieved. [ 7 ] Consequently, relying on my inherent jurisdiction, I order that Ms. Reid will be detained in the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital in Coquitlam until the completion of the trial, and the hospital will apply to that the same methodology that they would as if the order were made under 672.29. If they have a problem with that, they can arrange to have the matter brought back before me upon giving notice to counsel. I do not imagine they will have such a problem.

[ 8 ] There is one additional factor that accompanies this, and that is that there is no hospital in Prince George where the accused is currently facing these charges. Counsel are agreed that, in view of what I have just ordered, it is necessary that the matter be held in Vancouver, because that is where the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital is. There is a joint application before me for a change of venue. It is reasonable and fair that that order be made, and I do order that change of venue. “Silverman J.” _______________________________ The Honourable Mr. Justice Silverman