R. v. Prevost, 2019 BCPC 162

Citation: R. v. Prevost 2019 BCPC 162 Date: 20190712 File Nos: 177110-1, 177833-1 Registry: Victoria IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JEFFREY ANTHONY PREVOST ORAL RULING RE ADJOURNMENT TO VICTORIA INTEGRATED COURT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A. BROOKS Counsel for the Crown: S. Bakken Counsel for the Accused: T. Morino Place of Hearing: Victoria, B.C. Date of Hearing: July 12, 2019 Date of Judgment: July 12, 2019 [ 1 ] THE COURT: Mr. Prevost is before me on two informations and seeks his judicial interim release. I am going to adjourn this judicial interim release hearing to next week.

The reason for doing so I should say quite clearly in order that it can be clear, is what is the issue for determination at that judicial interim release hearing. The Crown seeks Mr. Prevost's detention on the basis of the secondary ground, that is to say, on the basis that there is a substantial likelihood that if released he would commit further offences or interfere with the administration of justice. [ 2 ] In that regard, they have placed before me the criminal record. The criminal record of Mr. Prevost is a significant one. It does,

however, have as one of its most recent entries from, I believe it is 2010, an entry that shows he was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder with regard to a robbery charge. There then is a gap in his criminal record. Traditionally, gaps are considered to be very important in determining whether a person can be released, because the inference is that they have been able to conduct themselves appropriately and therefore are entitled to release. That does not quite hold true for Mr.

Prevost because, thanks to some stellar work by Crown counsel in this matter, I have a timeline and a review board decision with regard to Mr. Prevost. [ 3 ] The timeline shows that essentially, if I can summarize it this way, Mr. Prevost has been hospitalized with regard to his mental disorder for very much the large part of all the time since the last offence.

He did have a period of time in which a person who is an advocate for him had him attend at her residence for a few months, but in essence that did not work out. [ 4 ] It is important for reasons of judicial interim release and for the reasons for my adjournment to set out what was said at the review board decision and it is necessary for me to quote at some length from that decision. I note the decision had as its chair Mr. Walter who is well known for his experience in this area. At paragraph 3, he notes that [as read in]: Mr.

Prevost has been consistently mentally ill since 1981, presenting with hallucinations, depression, periodic aggression, and volatile behaviour. In 1981, he suffered a severe brain injury in a fall leaving him with an inability to control his behaviour. Testing suggests he has an IQ of 79 and functions at a borderline level of intelligence with impairment of executive, attention, and language functions. [ 5 ] He then goes on at paragraph 7 and 8 as follows [as read in]: On March 28th, 2012, Mr. Prevost was given a verdict of NCRMD and committed to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital.

He has remained in custody continuously since that verdict. As indicated, while detained at Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, he has been abstinent and has participated in programs, but has at times and relatively consistently presented as agitated, defiant, volatile, and impulsive. Given his constellation of afflictions, it has been determined that he would likely not be capable of living entirely independently. Indeed, he was considered unable to meet the functional requirements of the Hawthorne Unit of this hospital. In 2014 and 2015, efforts to reintegrate Mr.

Prevost to a facility in Victoria on a visit-leave basis were unsuccessful. Since 2015, much effort has been made to explore and secure an appropriately supported outpatient residence, unfortunately, to no avail. This has contributed to the accused's frustration and stress which causes him to act out in the form of threats to others as well as self-harm gestures.

The evidence also suggests that undue stress such as the prospect of a review board appearance or disappointment in terms of reintegration efforts can decompensate him and cause the emergence of psychotic symptoms. [ 6 ] At paragraph 14, there is a reference to his risk factors and then, in paragraph 17, that paragraph concludes with this [as read in]: The assessment suggests that the Seas Home [phonetic] which also accommodates Mr. Prevost's brother is suitable. Mr. Prevost also cites the possibility of support services of Mr.

Prevost's acquired brain injury, also believe the Vancouver Island Health Authority as well as access to Native Friendship and other services. Ms. Pearce [phonetic] is of the view that Mr. Prevost has a complex array of needs, would not be expected to live independently, and requires 24 hour support given the nature of his diagnoses. In order to accommodate Mr. Prevost, PC [phonetic] says she would need the support of

an ACT team and possibly Forensic Services. She cited numerous programs and activities that would be available in the Sooke and Victoria communities. She would also benefit from respite opportunities and offers to transport Mr. Prevost to programs and appointments. [ 7 ] There is then a review by the board of the extent of the danger or risk posed by Mr. Prevost.

There is reference to authority which emphasizes that an analysis of risk must not be based on speculation, and then continues at paragraph 28 [as read in]: We do not in any way minimize or downplay that as a result of his complex constellation of mental health diagnoses as well as his physical issues, Mr. Prevost requires an extensive system of support, supervisory and medical services, in order to maintain himself in the community.

In the same paragraph, it says this [as read in]: In this case, despite a somewhat distant history of criminality, of institutionalization, of functional limitations, and of substance use, the accused has not demonstrated, even in the artificial environment of this institution, much in the way of violence or aggression aside from what may be predictable episodes of agitation, defiance friction resulting in verbal altercation, and/or self-harm gestures. [ 8 ] At paragraph 30 [as read in]: It is concluded that he does not pose a significant threat to public safety and he is absolutely discharged. [ 9 ] I have quoted that at length really so that it is clear what is in issue here.

He needs significant support. That support must be delivered by Forensic Services given the array of illnesses, including mental illnesses, which he has suffered from for many, many years, and also, and perhaps not as clearly, is the degree to which he poses a risk to the community in light of everything that has been said about him. [ 10 ] Now that obviously raises significant issues as it relates to the secondary ground on bail. I am left in a situation in which there is a great deal that I do not know that I need to know.

I need to know what Forensic Psychiatric Services is going to do, or would be prepared to do, in terms of the monitoring of him. I need to know what could happen by way of housing and who could assist Mr. Prevost with housing. It is not practical for him to go out and find it himself or live on the street. It is necessary that there be those involved who would support him. It is necessary that there be some kind of plan that those who provide support services would work on behalf of Mr. Prevost.

Otherwise, quite simply, he is going to rot in jail which is the last place where he should be. [ 11 ] In Victoria, we have the benefit of the Victoria Integrated Court. When that court started, we had the assistance of a psychiatric

nurse who came regularly to the court every Tuesday and would be available to assist in whatever way he could in linking an individual up with whatever services they might need. It was a tremendous assistance to the court and to the community. Obviously, the services available in that court allowed the silos that exist in support services to be broken down.

For reasons about which I am unclear, that service by Forensics to Victoria Integrated Court ended. [ 12 ] If I recall the reports prepared on behalf of Victoria Integrated Court correctly, it has been identified as a gap in service of the court on several occasions that Forensics does not appropriately engage with the individuals who come to Victoria Integrated Court. Again, I do not know why that is. I do know it is extremely negative for the court and for the community. Mr.

Prevost is a very clear example of that. [ 13 ] Accordingly, I am going to adjourn this matter over to Victoria Integrated Court next Tuesday, the 16th of July. Mr. Prevost can appear by video at that time so the appearance can be at 9:30 if need be. [ 14 ] I can understand that if Forensics does not want to participate on a regular basis at Victoria Integrated Court, that nevertheless they would very much want to be engaged in a particular case that cries out for their assistance. This is that case.

I therefore extend to Forensic Psychiatric Services an invitation that they attend by way of whichever representative they view appropriate to Victoria Integrated Court next Tuesday morning in order to participate in the consultation process that can go into assisting Mr. Prevost with housing and supports in the community if available.

He is currently certified under the Mental Health Act , however, I do not know if that provides any access to services he might otherwise not have. [ 15 ] The other option that I have left, and has been suggested to me for a person who is certified, is that if he is released, he will be left to his own devices and no jurisdiction under the Mental Health Act will be exercised over him unless he is non-compliant with medication or he causes some offence in the community. It can be seen that that is a totally inadequate response.

The matter is adjourned accordingly with my thanks to counsel for their assistance in this difficult matter. [ 16 ] I would like a transcript prepared of this, please, to be placed on the file. [ 17 ] THE CLERK: Yes, Your Honour. [ 18 ] THE COURT: It is to be done on an expedited basis. [ 19 ] THE CLERK: Of the entire hearing? [ 20 ] THE COURT: No, of my reasons just now. (RULING CONCLUDED)