R. v. Becker, 2022 BCPC 231

Citation: R. v. Becker 2022 BCPC 231 Date: 20221021 File Nos: 36617-1-1, 36643-1 Registry: Fort St. John IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REX v. CHRISTOPHER RYAN BECKER REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE D.T. REEVES Counsel for the Crown: J. Fung Counsel for the Defendant: S. Thompson Place of Hearing: Fort St. John , B.C. Date of Hearing: May 5-6, 2022 Date of Judgment: October 21, 2022

[1] Mr. Christopher Ryan Becker brings application to be found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder (NCRMD)pursuant to s. 16 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46, regarding two informations before this court. Mr. Becker is alleged to havecommitted aggravated assault against Mr. Garth Murray, assault with a weapon against Mr. Dayton Pyle, and a breach of a recognizanceby being under the influence of cocaine or methamphetamine, all occurring on August 14, 2020, in Fort St. John, BC. [2] Mr.

Becker admits through counsel that he committed these offences, and that, if not found NCRMD, he must be convicted of allcounts on the basis of his admissions. This court will therefore focus exclusively on the requisite mens rea for the offences, as thenecessary actus reus is admitted and accepted. BACKGROUND [3] Mr. Becker personifies the all too common, and tragic, case of individuals before criminal courts who are diagnosed withmultiple mental health issues and attendant behavioural problems but for whom adequate and sustained medical treatment is elusive. [4] Mr.

Becker was diagnosed at the age of eight with Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder (ADHD), Reactive AttachmentDisorder of infancy or early childhood, Oppositional Defiant Disorder, Conduct Disorder, Adjustment Disorder, and an UnspecifiedLearning Disorder. [5] In 2013, at the age of 21, Mr.

Becker was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Attention Deficit Disorder, and PolysubstanceDependence. [6] In 2020 he was further treated and diagnosed for Schizoaffective Disorder, Bipolar Episode, Neurocognitive Impairment ofmixed etiology including traumatic brain injury, and the toxic effect of extensive and severe substance use. Throughout this periodMr. Becker was treated, released, and would then reoffend, often in circumstances involving drug use. This period was also marked byhighly unpredictable, assaultive, sexually disinhibited, and self-injurious behaviour. [7] Mr.

Becker was incarcerated at the Prince George Regional Correctional Facility (PGRCC) up until the day prior to the allegedoffences. Within the PGRCC he was diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Attention Deficit Disorder, and Polysubstance Dependence. It issuggested by the Crown that Mr. Becker likely consumed crack cocaine of an unknown quantity or quality the day of his release and inthe hours preceding these alleged offences. Mr. Becker strongly denies this suggestion to the court, but his counsel admits this likely didoccur. ANALYSIS [8] This is a “reverse onus” defence in that Mr.

Becker bears both an evidentiary and persuasive burden to establish, on a balance ofprobabilities, the defence of NCRMD (R. v. Fontaine, 2004 SCC 27 at para 54, R. v. Leclair, 2021 BCSC 2202 at para 9). The two-stageanalysis as set out in R. v. Bouchard-Lebrun, 2011 SCC 58, para 56, will therefore be employed, in order to answer: 1. Was Mr. Becker suffering from a mental disorder at the time of the incident? and, if so, 2. Did Mr. Becker appreciate that his acts were wrong? [9] As will be set out below, this court finds Mr.

Becker is not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder pursuant to s. 16of the Code. 1. Was Mr. Becker Suffering From A Mental Disorder At The Time Of The Incidents? [10] Mental disorder is very broadly defined at s. 2 of the Code but has been further refined by the courts. Generally, conditions oforganic or internal cause will more likely be held to be a mental disorder, and permanent, non-curable, and recurring conditions are morelikely to be so found than temporary, curable, or non-recurring conditions. A holistic approach is to be employed and shall consider:

a) if the defendant’s alleged mental state was internal or brought on by an external cause;

b) whether the cause is such that it posed a continuing danger to the public, and

c) other policy considerations: (R. v. MacKinnon, 2021 ONSC 4763 at para 508 citing Bouchard-LeBrun at paras. 58-62, 71, 73-75; et.al.) [11] The determination of whether an accused was suffering from a mental disorder is a question of law and, although directly linkedto this conclusion, medical evidence is not dispositive of the legal finding, which ultimately remains a question for the trial judge(Leclair at para 12). [12] Where evidence of an external cause or contributory factor is present alongside of internal cause(s), “the dichotomy betweeninternal and external causes becomes blurred” (R. v.

Parks, (SCC), pp. 902-903). Factors that may contribute to asubstance-induced psychosis can include symptoms of an active paranoid personality disorder when drugs are taken, exposure to toxicvapours combined with a period of intense stress, drug dependency (including cocaine), heavy drug use preceding the commission of acrime and withdrawal following excessive consumption of alcohol.

The diversity of circumstances which include quantity and toxicity ofdrugs or substances involved, and variations in psychological makeup and history of the accused, require that each determination be factspecific (Bouchard-Lebrun at para 67, other citations omitted). [13] Where a state of toxic psychosis presents while an accused is intoxicated, the court should start from the general principle thattemporary psychosis or a “self-induced state caused by alcohol or drugs” is excluded from the NCMRD protection of s. 16. This

principle is not absolute and may be rebutted by showing that, at the material time, the accused suffered from a disease of the mind thatwas unrelated to the intoxication-related symptoms (Bouchard-Lebrun at para 69 citing R. v.

Stone, (SCC) para 203).The defence at s. 16 is not intended to shield those who suffered a temporary disease of the mind artificially brought on by a state ofvoluntary intoxication, and courts must exercise particular caution when faced with an accused alleged to have committed an offencewhile so intoxicated, concurrently while suffering an underlying mental condition (Bouchard-Lebrun at para 68, 84). Was Mr. Becker’s Mental State Caused By An Internal Or External Factor? [14] Mr. Becker’s mental state was ultimately caused by an internal factor.

The analysis undertaken to arrive at this conclusionrequired a comparison of the accused with a normal person. The nature of the trigger must be considered and whether a normal person inthe same circumstances experiencing the same trigger might have reacted as claimed by the accused and entered an automatistic state(Stone at para 206).

This comparison is objective and may include psychiatric evidence; the more the psychiatric evidence suggests anormal person suffering no disease of the mind would be susceptible to a similar state, the more justified a court is to find an externaltrigger which would preclude the application of s. 16. The opposite also holds true. Where drug use is found to be contemporaneous withthe offence, the issue becomes whether a normal person, having consumed a similar amount of the same substance as the accused, mighthave reacted in the same way and developed toxic psychosis.

Factors to consider should also include fatigue, pace of consumption andany other circumstances present when the accused consumed the drugs that triggered the psychotic condition (Bouchard-Lebrun, para71-72). Where both pre-existing mental disorder and intoxication are found as contributory factors, the analysis must be nuanced,recognizing the fact specific nature of the inquiry (Leclair at para 144). [15] This court accepts through admissions that Mr.

Becker was released from PGRCC the day prior to the alleged incidents, where hewas held for approximately 15 weeks having served the entirety of a custodial sentence. While incarcerated Mr. Becker was prescribedpsychiatric medications, including what all experts in this hearing characterized as the “gold standard”, Clozapine, and was compliantwith his medications. Mr. Becker was observed making hand gestures consistent with smoking crack cocaine the evening prior to theassaults, and the following morning after the assaults police searched his bedroom and discovered four “crack pipes”.

No evidence wasled regarding the presence of residue on any of these pipes. Upon arrest Mr. Becker’s actions and behaviour was consistent with the consumption of central nervous stimulants such as methamphetamine and cocaine, and on August 19th Mr. Becker’s urine tested positivefor methamphetamines. [16] Mr. Becker had no previous animus against the two victims of his attacks, one being a cousin and the other a neighbour living next door to Mr. Becker’s mother with whom Mr. Becker stayed on the night of August 13th/14th. In the morning hours of August 14th Mr.

Becker was acting erratically and following a confusing verbal altercation with his cousin, struck him with a vacuum tube. A shortwhile later Mr. Becker was approached by an elderly neighbour whom he had known for many years. Mr. Becker accused the neighbourof abusing the neighbour’s own child and Mr. Becker’s mother, and commenced assaulting the neighbour resulting in cigarette burns,facial bruising, a broken jaw and several broken teeth. Mr.

Becker then departed, and was found by police several hours later apparentlywalking to the RCMP bearing a box of doughnuts, for the purpose of reporting as had been ordered upon release. [17] Two experts provided evidence to this court and were of great assistance. In Dr. Lu’s testimony and report, he opined thatMr. Becker fully meets the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for chronic schizophrenia with paranoid ideation involving themes related to thedevil, evil spirits, and Lucifer. In arriving at his diagnosis Dr. Lu cited Mr. Becker’s long history which included

a) long term substance abuse tracing back to the age of 8;

b) unresolved social and brain injury vulnerabilities including a borderline impaired or delayed intelligence functions IQ of 70, agrade seven education and previous head injuries;

c) Mr. Becker’s treatment history following the incident which included several months of hospitalization, two antipsychotics anda mood stabilizer to regain fitness to stand trial; and

d) that despite remaining within the stable environment of custody with ongoing medical treatment, Mr. Becker continued toexperience psychosis with limited control of his psychotic symptoms. This was manifested in cutting the number “666” into his own armand then taking steps to hide it, and consuming his own urine and caching his own feces in his cell in order to ward off the “bad spirits”. [18] Dr. Lu concluded that, while substance-induced psychosis may have contributed to Mr. Becker’s condition at the time of theoffences, psychosis could not possibly be the sole cause and thus Mr.

Becker’s psychotic state at the time of the offences was primarilydue to a mental illness of chronic schizophrenia with persistent paranoia ideation. Dr. Lu cited the fact that Mr. Becker’s psychoticbehaviour extended well after the effects of even a large dose of methamphetamine would have left the body, which was also suggestivethat the underlying schizophrenia was the trigger. Moreover, given the lack of evidence regarding the relative contribution of anysuspected substance use on his underlying psychosis, Mr.

Becker’s clinical history did not support a diagnosis of substance-inducedpsychosis or substance exacerbation of the underlying chronic schizophrenia. [19] Dr. Gharakhanian also testified and submitted a report, noting many of the same actions and behaviours as observed ofMr. Becker by Dr. Lu while under medical observation. Dr. Gharakhanian diagnosed Mr. Becker with schizoaffective disordercomplicated by substance use disorder and neurocognitive disorder due to brain injury and extensive substance use, but in citingMr. Becker’s extensive history of drug abuse and drug-induced mental disorders he felt Mr.

Becker’s condition did not qualify as amental disorder under s. 16. Dr. Gharakhanian and Dr. Lu noted Mr. Becker reported hearing a voice telling him to take these actions asthe victims were each engaged in various sexually deviant acts against vulnerable victims. Dr. Gharkhanian concluded however that itwas unlikely that Mr. Becker’s psychotic state of mind at the time of the assaults was in context of his schizoaffective disorder.Dr. Gharkhanian opined that Mr. Becker’s actions were more likely to have been caused by the use of drugs, either crack cocaine ormethamphetamine. In the view of Dr. Gharkhanian, Mr.

Becker’s schizoaffective disorder was medically under control having beenprescribed clozapine while in custody, which he described as the “gold standard” for medication, and thus the consumption ofmethamphetamine was the trigger for Mr. Becker’s psychosis.

[ 20 ] Both experts therefore agree that Mr. Becker suffers a psychosis, whether chronic schizophrenia with paranoid ideation (Dr. Lu) or schizoaffective disorder complicated by substance use disorder and neurocognitive disorder due to brain injury and extensive substance use (Dr. Gharkhanian). Where they differed was on the relative cause of his psychosis at the time of the offences. Dr. Lu felt that Mr. Becker’s underlying psychosis, which were a combination of four aggravating conditions, was the predominant cause that may have been influenced, but not caused, by the consumption of crack cocaine.

In contrast Dr. Gharkhanian opined that Mr. Becker was substantially treated for his schizoaffective disorder however due to the consumption of drugs, likely crack cocaine, he developed a drug induced psychosis. Dr. Gharkhanian did concede that if Mr. Becker’s schizophrenia had not been treated at the time of the incident, it would be possible that this could have been the cause of Mr. Becker’s acts. [ 21 ] What was persuasive to this court was the linking of any potential drug use, which was conceded as likely by Dr. Lu, to Mr.

Becker’s noted medical history and noted behaviours plus his subsequent actions and behaviours. Dr. Lu testified that these behaviours could not be explained by a psychosis that was all or even predominately due to the consumption of methamphetamine, which would cause the most severe behaviours in anyone but would see this behaviour directed randomly, and not in keeping with an underlying psychosis. Following this incident Mr.

Becker was placed under intensive psychiatric medical care and lived within a very structured and stress free environment for months, while receiving ongoing monitoring and adjustment to his medications. Only after many months of this care was Mr. Becker found fit for trial, which can’t be explained by consuming even a significant amount of crack cocaine. [ 22 ] Dr Lu further noted that prior to this incident Mr. Becker had not had contact with either complainant for years. This, combined with Mr.

Becker’s belief that Lucifer told him violence was necessary to protect others from the complainants, supported a finding that Mr. Becker’s actions were most likely an internally consistent psychosis. Dr. Lu further opined that such belief-based acts are markedly different from the random or impulsive attacks more commonly associated with substance-induced psychosis or substance exacerbation of chronic schizophrenia.

Combined with his documented historical mental health diagnosis and court involvements, these all supported an underlying diagnosis of chronic schizophrenia that was extremely resistant to treatment. [ 23 ] Equally persuasive was Dr. Lu’s evidence that for individuals suffering schizophrenic psychotic conditions, one of the most effective treatments involved the use of structure and routine to manage a person’s psychotic state.

Routine such as regular meals and sleep, planned activity periods, and the distancing from irregular events that are common outside of a structured hospital or correctional facility, was a significant form of treatment. Being suddenly released from such a controlled environment would detract from a treated condition such as schizophrenia, thus even if a person was taking the prescribed medication clozapine this loss of a regulated environment would exacerbate the underlying schizophrenia psychosis and render the person more vulnerable. [ 24 ] This court finds that Mr.

Becker did consume methamphetamine or crack cocaine on August 13 th , 2020 of an unknown quantity and purity. Concurrently, he had just been released from the very controlled and predictable environment at PGRCC. A normal person who does not suffer a disease of the mind, if confronted with these two factors, would likely not be susceptible to entering an automatistic state.

This is objectively supported when noting the number of inmates who are released daily from state custody at PGRCC or other such custodial institutions, subsequently consume substances including crack cocaine, and do not develop toxic psychosis. Mr. Becker’s actions were triggered by his inability to control his own psychotic symptoms, and therefore were caused by an internal factor. Is The Cause Such That It Poses A Continuing Danger To The Public? [ 25 ] Mr. Becker continues to pose a continuing danger to the public.

This finding is directly related to the need to ensure public safety and to “assess the likelihood of recurring danger to others. Where a condition is likely to present a recurring danger, there is a greater chance that it will be regarded as a disease of the mind” ( Bouchard-Lebrun at para 73 ). In making this assessment the court holistically examined two related issues; first, the accused’s psychiatric history and any pattern of violence, and second the likelihood that the alleged trigger involved in the automatistic incident will recur ( Stone , at para 214, 218 ).

To remain consistent with the s. 16 defence that exempts a person from criminal responsibility where their actions are morally involuntary, this “continuing danger to the public” assessment examined whether the accused’s mental condition poses an inherent danger that persists despite the accused’s will, and is not linked to the accused’s voluntary behaviour ( Bouchard-Lebrun at para 74 ). [ 26 ] Mr. Becker’s psychiatric history commenced when he was first admitted to the BC Children’s Hospital in 2000 at the age of eight and diagnosed with multiple disorders as previously described.

He was admitted to the Prince George Regional Hospital in 2002 where he was prescribed Lithium to assist him in dealing with sever behavioural problems. As early as 2010 Mr. Becker began receiving assessments for psychotic symptoms which included paranoid beliefs that he was being watched as well as paranoid auditory hallucinations. Throughout this period Mr. Becker was also found to be regularly using psychoactive substances including crystal methamphetamine, leading to a diagnosis in 2020 of traumatic brain injury and toxic effect of extensive and severe use of substances. Mr.

Becker was noted to be highly unpredictable, assaultive, sexually disinhibited and self injurious, while PGRCC information noted that Mr. Becker presented as psychotic, volatile, violent, and impulsive. Mr. Becker’s criminal record reflects an extensive record of violence and breaches of court orders. [ 27 ] Mr. Becker first began hearing voices and visions of bad spirits as early as age 17, and believed that the devil Lucifer stalked him.

He has twice carved “666” into his arm as part of these beliefs, and then then scratched the numbers out with deeper cuts as he would subsequently become afraid he could not go to Heaven while bearing the marks. For years Mr. Becker has believed that by drinking his own urine he can keep evil spirits away, while by keeping his feces beneath is bed he can trap evil spirits within the feces and then if careful, flush them away. Dr.

Lu opined that schizophrenia is a chronic illness and even with medications and other treatment patents may experience residual psychotic features. [ 28 ] Following his arrest as the result of this incident, Mr. Becker was found unfit for trial and remanded to the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital (FPH) where he remained under ongoing treatment until he was found fit to stand trial by the Review Board over seven months later. Mr. Becker’s treatment at the FPH was described by Dr.

Gharakhanian as “marked by mood instability, aggressive behaviour, inappropriate sexual behaviour directed at female staff, and refusal of medications as prescribed”. Mr. Becker was discovered again drinking his own urine and hiding a large plate filled with his feces under his bed. To treat Mr. Becker’s condition his antipsychotic medication dosage had to be increased for a court ordered assessment. At the time he authored his report, Dr. Lu opined that, despite

Mr. Becker receiving two antipsychotic and a mood stabilizer medications and remaining in the FPH stable environment, Mr. Beckercontinued to have limited control of his psychotic symptoms. [29] Mr. Becker has a history and pattern of violence, inappropriate sexualized behaviour, and self-harming to the extent that he hastwice attempted suicide, once by hanging and another time via “suicide by cop”. While he also has an extensive history of consumingdrugs including crack cocaine and crystal methamphetamine, this court has found that for the most recent incident the trigger wasMr.

Becker’s limited control over his psychotic symptoms within all the surrounding circumstances. This court holds a very real andpresent concern that Mr. Becker’s condition and inability to control his symptoms is a recurring danger that persists despite Mr. Becker’swill, and is involuntary. Other Policy Considerations [30] At this stage of the analysis the court must conduct an open inquiry into policy factors that will assist in answering whethersociety requires protection from the accused and, consequently, if the accused should be subject to evaluation under the regimeestablished at

Part XX.1 of the Code (Stone at para 218). Where no particular treatment or threat to others, or to themselves, is suggestedin the circumstances before the court, it is more easily suggested that the accused was not suffering from a disease of the mind at thetime of the alleged events.(Bouchard-Lebrun para 75). [31] The scheme found at

Part XX.1 applies narrowly, only where an accused is found to have been suffering from a disease of themind at the time of the alleged offence. The intent of the scheme is to only exempt from criminal responsibility those persons whoseactions are morally involuntary. The effect of being found subject to

Part XX.1 is that the accused person is not sentenced to prison but isinstead placed in the custody of a review board responsible to make decisions concerning that person’s future detention and treatment. [32] The court finds, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr. Brecker suffered a disease of the mind at the time of the incidents; thathis condition is subject to medical treatment; and that absent this treatment he constitutes a threat to himself and others. 2. Did Mr. Becker Appreciate That His Acts Were Wrong? [33] At this stage of the analysis, having found that Mr.

Becker was suffering from a mental disorder within the meaning of s. 16 atthe time of the alleged offences, the effects of the mental disorder must be considered. More specifically, the court must determinewhether Mr. Becker’s mental disorder made him incapable of knowing the wrongfulness of his actions (Bouchard-Lebrun at para 56).The focus here is on Mr. Becker’s capacity to know that the specific acts committed were wrong, not simply that he had the generalcapacity to distinguish right from wrong (R v. Chaulk, (SCC)).

The mental disorder must have rendered the accusedperson incapable of either “(1) appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission; or (2) knowing that it was wrong”(R v. Webster, 2022 BCSC 771 at para 19). [34] An inability to make rational choices may be due to a variety of mental dysfunctions, including “delusions which make theaccused perceive

an act which is wrong as right or justifiable”, or a “disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of theability to rationally evaluate what he is doing”. The standard of right and wrong turns on society’s views and not the accused’s ownmoral code. (R v. Oommen, (SCC)). The focus “is not on the ability of the accused person to distinguish right conductfrom wrong conduct in the abstract, for example, to understand that murder is wrong.

The focus is on the person’s ability to rationallyperceive and choose between right and wrong conduct in the particular circumstances of the case” (Webster, at para 21). [35] Dr. Gharakhanian interviewed Mr. Becker in August 2021, during which Mr. Becker related that he heard a voice telling him tostrike his cousin with the vacuum stick as his cousin was raping Mr. Becker’s mother. A voice also told him to “beat the crap out of hisneighbour” because the neighbour was sexually abusing his own granddaughter. This voice was male, and Mr. Becker heard it in bothhis ears and inside his head. Mr.

Becker said he knew he was committing the assaultive acts, that the complainants would suffer injury,and that “(he) probably shouldn’t have done that. It is legally wrong”. Mr. Becker further stated in the interview however that his actswere morally right, as he still believed that his cousin raped his mother and his neighbour abused his granddaughter. As a result,Dr. Gharakhanian opined that Mr. Becker was able to appreciate, or understand, the nature and quality of the acts for which he wascharged, and was also aware of the consequences of his acts. While Mr.

Becker knew he was legally wrong, he believed his actions weremorally right. [36] Dr. Lu subsequently interviewed Mr. Becker in March 2022, and Mr. Becker further related that the voices he heard were “fromLucifer” and maintained that he assaulted his cousin and neighbour to get justice for their sexually abused victims. He had gotten theidea to be “an angel” to protect these victims from a video game, and wanted to “free” the victims. Mr. Becker knows that it is wrong tohurt anyone and felt bad about hurting his cousin and neighbour, however felt he was right as they were evil. Dr.

Lu opined that at thetime of the incidents, Mr. Becker was experiencing acute paranoid thoughts that formed the basis of action towards both complainants,and that “due to the content and nature of his psychosis, Mr. Becker could not appreciate the nature and quality of” his alleged assaults.Rather, Mr. Becker was acting in accordance with his paranoid delusional thought process. [37] This court finds that at the time of the incident, Mr.

Becker was acting under the moral compulsion of the voice of Lucifer in hishead telling him that his cousin and neighbour were “evil”, and that he had to assault them to protect their “victims” from further sexualassault. He believed he was an “angel” working to free these victims, and that his actions were right in the circumstances as heappreciated and believed them to be. Mr. Becker therefore could not appreciate the nature and quality of his acts. DISPOSITION [38] This court concludes that Mr.

Becker did enter an automatistic state at the time the offences occurred due to an internal factor,which was his chronic schizophrenia related paranoia. Mr. Becker therefore suffers a mental disorder that rendered him incapable ofappreciating the nature and quality of the alleged assaults on August 14, 2020. He felt morally compelled by a voice, he attributed toLucifer, to “protect” vulnerable people and in this state he lashed out at his cousin and then his neighbour.

He was incapable ofappreciating the nature and quality of his actions, and therefore is not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder pursuant tos. 16 of the Code.

[ 39 ] This court declines to exercise its discretion to hold a disposition hearing. Pursuant to ss. 672.45(1.1) and 672.47 of the Code , my reasons together with a transcript of this proceeding and the exhibits will be sent to the Review Board for disposition within 45 days. Pursuant to s. 672.46 , Mr. Becker shall be transported into the custody of the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital pending the Review Board’s decision. [ 40 ] Mr. Becker and members of the family, I wish all of you the best as you continue to deal with his persistent mental illness. Good luck. _____________________________ D.T. Reeves, PCJ Provincial Court of British Columbia