R. v. Bandura Date:, 2011 BCPC 349

Citation: R. v. Bandura Date: 20110224 2011 BCPC 0349 File No: 91251-2-C Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA REGINA v. JOHN LORNE BANDURA REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE DONEGAN Crown Counsel: S. Lawhead Defence Counsel: M. Stanford Place of Hearing: Kamloops, B.C. Date of Judgment: February 24, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: John Lorne Bandura severely beat Bishop David Monroe on October 22, 2010. He is charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon, and mischief. A shortened trial was held before me on February 15, 2011. Mr.

Bandura through his counsel has admitted that the Crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is the person that committed the acts. I made that finding on February 15 at the time. [ 2 ] The sole issue now is whether or not Mr. Bandura should be found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. The position of both Crown and defence is that at the time of the assault Mr.

Bandura was suffering from a major mental disorder, bipolar disorder, and was in the midst of a psychotic episode which rendered him unable to appreciate that his actions were morally wrong in the circumstances. [ 3 ] I will first outline the law in this area.

Section 16 of the Criminal Code sets out the statutory basis for a finding of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. It reads: 16(1) No person is criminally responsible for

an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.

(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities. [ 4 ] Section 16(3) addresses the burden of proof. It is on the party that raises the issue. [ 5 ] This

section of the Criminal Code refers to a mental disorder. In the past, as pointed out by the Crown in its written argument, the law used the word "insanity" and, in discussing the law as it stood before the amendments in the wording, the Supreme Court of Canada outlined some important principles in R. v. Chaulk . At paragraph 21, Mr. Justice Lamer speaking for the majority said: ... some basic assumptions of our criminal law model: that the accused is a rational autonomous being who is capable of appreciating the nature and quality of

an act and of knowing right from wrong. ... With the state of insanity, these basic assumptions are brought into question because the accused is suffering from some disease of the mind or from some delusions which cause him or her to have a frame of reference which is significantly different than that which most people share. This mental condition means that the accused is largely

incapable of criminal intent and should not, therefore, generally be subject to criminal liability in the same way that sane people are. [6] Mr. Justice Powers recently wrote in a decision here in Kamloops, R. v. Schoenborn, 2010 BCSC 220, at paragraph 23:

Section 16 recognizes that in some cases a person charged with a crime may suffer from a mental disorder that is so severe that wecannot hold them criminally responsible for what they have done however serious the nature or consequences of their crime. [7] To summarize, s. 16 requires that the following must be proved on a balance of probabilities: First, that the accused, Mr.Bandura, suffered from a mental disorder at the time of his attack upon Bishop Monroe, and, second, that the disorder rendered himincapable of appreciating the nature and quality of his act or incapable of knowing that his act was wrong. [8] There has been a great deal of case law over the years providing guidance and

definitions of these various terms, and I apologizein advance. I am going to have to go through some of the law in this area. I appreciate it may be a little dry, but it is necessary. [9] First dealing with “mental disorder”, s. 2 of the Criminal Code states that a mental disorder means, "a disease of the mind." Aspointed out by the Crown and agreed by both counsel, this is a legal concept constituting a question of law as to its meaning andapplication. It is for the court to determine whether Mr. Bandura suffered from a disease of the mind at the time of the offence. [10] Mr. Justice Dickson in Cooper v. The Queen, (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 1149, provided the following definition: In

summary, one might say that in a legal sense “disease of the mind” embraces any illness, disorder or abnormal condition whichimpairs the human mind and its functioning, excluding however, self-induced states caused by alcohol or drugs, as well as transitorymental states such as hysteria or concussion. In order to support a defence of insanity the disease must, of course, be of such intensity asto render the accused incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the violent act or of knowing that it is wrong. [11] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v.

Simpson (1977), 35 C.C.C. (2d) 38, described it this way: It is the function of the psychiatrist to describe the accused's mental condition and how it is considered from the medical point of view.

Itis for the Judge to decide whether the condition described is comprehended by the term "disease of the mind". [12] The evidence of medical witnesses, here one medical witness, with respect to the cause, nature, and symptoms of the conditionand how it is viewed and characterized from a medical point of view, is highly relevant to my determination of whether or not Mr.Bandura suffered from a disease of the mind, but it is not determinative of this issue. (R. v.

Rabey (1977), (ON CA), 37C.C.C. (2d) 461, a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1980). [13] The evidence from Dr. Meldrum in this case is clear that Mr. Bandura currently suffers and is being treated at the ForensicPsychiatric Hospital from a major mental disorder, bipolar mood disorder. In determining whether he suffered from a mental disorder atthe time of the offence, I am to consider the evidence of the expert, but, as well, all of the evidence. [14] As pointed out by Mr. Justice Dambrot in R. v. Fell, [2003] O.J.

No. 1145, at paragraph 455: In deciding this issue, I am entitled to take into consideration the opinions of the experts concerning Mr. Fell's mental state at the time ofthe homicide. I am also entitled to take into account their opinions of his mental state at times prior to and subsequent to the homicide,and make use of that evidence circumstantially to assist in determining his mental state at the relevant time. Of course, I am not confinedto the expert evidence in deciding this issue.

In addition to the opinions of the experts, I can, in accordance with the principles I [have]outlined in my discussion of hearsay evidence, take into consideration and use circumstantially the evidence of Mr. Fell's self-reportingabout his mental state and his behaviour, as well as any other evidence of his behaviour at the time of the homicide, prior to thehomicide and subsequent to the homicide, including the notes that he recorded on his computer. In the end, however, on this issue, theexpert evidence is of crucial importance. [15] This is the law that I will be guided by in my determination.

There is a significant body of law surrounding s. 16(2) of theCriminal Code. I will outline some of it here, but I have reviewed all of the law provided to me by both Crown and defence and they arein agreement on the test. [16] Dealing in short order with the first branch of s. 16(2), did Mr. Bandura appreciate the nature and quality of the act, in a seminalcase, R. v.

Landry, (SCC), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 99, the Supreme Court of Canada summarized this branch at paragraph 26as follows: This Court has made it clear on a number of occasions that the first branch of s. 16(2) refers to an incapacity to appreciate the physicalcharacter of and the physical consequences which flow from

an act or omission ... Collateral factors, such as an accused's emotionalattributes ... or his or her capacity to appreciate the penal consequences associated with

an act or omission ... are not relevant under thefirst branch ... [17] Both Crown and defence agree that in the case before me based on all of the evidence, and in particular the opinion of Dr.Meldrum, Mr. Bandura's statement to police some 15 hours after his assault on the bishop, and Mr. Bandura's actions following theassault, that Mr. Bandura was able to appreciate not only the nature of his act, but also the natural consequences flowing from it. [18] There is evidence that he was aware his actions would physically harm the bishop in some way. I do agree with Crown anddefence on this point. Mr.

Bandura was more likely than not able to appreciate the physical consequences of his act. Therefore, I findthat the first branch of s. 16 does not apply in this case. [19] This brings me to the second branch of s. 16(2) of the Criminal Code, which is the crux of this case. Did the mental disorderrender Mr. Bandura incapable of knowing that his acts were wrong? As with the other areas of law that I have discussed, there is asignificant body of law regarding this part of s. 16(2).

[ 20 ] I have reviewed a great deal of law in the area and found a very helpful

summary of it in R. v. Schoenborn , supra . Mr. Justice Powers summarized the law in this area at paragraph 34 of his decision, and it is a very long paragraph. The entire paragraph is a quote from Fell, supra. He also considers the seminal decision of R. v. Ratti , that is (1991), 62 C.C.C. (3d). He also considers R. v. Oommen , which is a case provided by the Crown, (1994), 91 C.C.C. (3d), it is a Supreme Court of Canada case and he goes through it in great detail. [ 21 ] I will not read all of paragraph 34, it goes on for some pages, but I will highlight the

summary that was provided by Mr. Justice Dambrot in Fell , and this is taken from, again, the same paragraph of Mr. Justice Powers' decision in Schoenborn . [ 22 ] Mr. Justice Dambrot at paragraph 41 of his decision in Fell summarized s. 16(2) , the second branch, as follows: 1. An accused will not be criminally responsible for

an act committed while he was suffering from a mental disorder that rendered him incapable of knowing that the act was contrary to law, or that the act breaches the standard of moral conduct that society expects of its members. 2. It is not sufficient to decide that the accused’s act was a result of a delusion. Even if the act was motivated by a delusion, the accused will be convicted if he was capable of knowing, in spite of such delusion, that the act in the particular circumstances would have been morally condemned by reasonable members of society. 3.

The inquiry focuses not on general capacity to know right from wrong, but rather on the ability to know that a particular act was wrong in the circumstances. The accused must possess the intellectual ability to know right from wrong in an abstract sense. But he or she must also possess the ability to apply that knowledge [rationally] ... to the alleged criminal act. The focus is not a general capacity to understand that the act, say of killing, is wrong, but rather the act “committed” or omission “made”, [in other words] the particular act or omission at issue in the criminal proceedings. 4.

The crux of the inquiry is whether the accused lacks the capacity to rationally decide whether the act is right or wrong and hence to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. The inability to make a rational choice may result from a variety of mental dysfunctions. These include delusions which make the accused perceive

an act which is wrong as right or justifiable, and a disordered condition of the mind which deprives the accused of the ability to rationally evaluate what he is doing. [ 23 ] The Crown points to two further cases as instructive for me as they bear a striking similarity to the case at bar. I have been directed to R. v. Donnelly, 2008 BCSC 137 . In this case, Mr. Donnelly suffered from bipolar mood disorder. He, while suffering from a delusion, killed his 16-year-old daughter by stabbing her multiple times. He thought that God wanted him to kill her.

While in the throes of a psychotic episode, he saw in relatively benign circumstances various signs that he interpreted as God instructing him to kill his daughter. He believed that if he did not kill his daughter that God would force him to kill his entire family as punishment. He knew when he was stabbing her that he would kill her. [ 24 ] Two psychiatrists testified in that case and they both shared the opinion that Mr. Donnelly, because of his mental disorder, which is the same mental disorder as Mr. Bandura has, did not know what he was doing was morally wrong at the time.

He knew the physical consequences of what he was doing, but not that it was morally wrong. The court agreed with the psychiatrists and found him not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder. [ 25 ] In R. v. Landry , supra . The accused was suffering from a mental disorder characterized by an acute psychosis which caused him to suffer religious delusions in which he thought he was God and he thought he had to rid the world of evil forces. He became convinced, as a result of his delusions, that his neighbour was Satan and he had to kill him to make the world a better place.

He planned the killing by taking a shotgun and shooting his neighbour twice in the head. [ 26 ] He was found to be suffering from a major mental disorder at the time he did this, but was clearly able to appreciate the nature and quality of the physical act. He knew by placing the gun to the head of his neighbour he would be killing him. However, because of his delusions at the time, he did not know his actions were morally wrong; in fact, he thought his delusions were quite right in the circumstances and he was found not criminally responsible for his act. [ 27 ] Here, Mr.

Bandura is 30 or perhaps 31 years of age now. He has no criminal history. He has no history of violence but for one fight in the past where he was defending his brother. He had a relatively stable upbringing and has lived a pro-social life with the exception of substance misuse which is outlined extensively in the reports. This substance misuse curtailed in 2008 and 2009 with Mr. Bandura continuing to use marihuana daily until October of 2010 when symptoms of his mental disorder began to arise again.

There is no evidence of any drug use in the week leading up to the assault on Bishop Monroe or on the day of the assault. [ 28 ] Mr. Bandura's first formal contact with psychiatry was at a hospital in Edmonton in February of 2005. At that time, he had been using various drugs and was described as being unstable in his mood, erratic in his behaviour, delusional, and suffering from hallucinations.

When he was admitted on this occasion for several days, the initial diagnosis was that of drug-induced psychosis, but given his history, there was concern that he might have been showing the first evidence then of his bipolar disorder. [ 29 ] Mr. Bandura also exhibited some erratic behaviour in the community. One such incident involved him jumping off a bridge. This was not a suicide attempt, but rather what has been described to me as a demonstration of Mr. Bandura's preoccupation with religious themes. When Mr.

Bandura is in the throes of his mental illness and is overtly manic, he becomes preoccupied with religious themes including the concern that he is possessed and has a need to cleanse himself with water. [ 30 ] During the same time period, that is, in 2005, Mr. Bandura drove his vehicle the wrong way down the highway while in the midst of one of his manic episodes. He believed that he was a religious figure, St. John the Baptist. During this episode, Mr.

Bandura viewed other motorists on the road honking at his vehicle as it drove the wrong way down the street as some form of positive acknowledgement that he was indeed John the Baptist. [ 31 ] After his discharge from hospital in Edmonton, Mr. Bandura moved to the Northwest Territories. In June of 2005, a doctor there

noted that he was showing signs of psychosis at a point when he stopped taking his antipsychotic drugs. This doctor restarted him on antipsychotics and it was noted in the material that Mr. Bandura's symptoms remitted immediately. The doctor's opinion at that time was that Mr. Bandura likely did have bipolar disorder, but unfortunately Mr. Bandura left the Northwest Territories and there was no follow- up. [ 32 ] In 2007, Mr. Bandura was diagnosed with bipolar mood disorder characterized by periodic manic and psychotic episodes.

He was in Kamloops at the time of this diagnosis and was admitted to hospital on an emergency basis. This admission was due to him impulsively destroying property in his father's home. He was admitted for nine days. At first, experts believed that Mr. Bandura's behaviour was as a result of his marihuana use, but after a few days of abstinence in hospital, his diagnosis was revised to bipolar disorder because while in hospital he developed clear symptoms of mania.

He was treated with medication, released from hospital and referred to outpatient follow-up with Kamloops Mental Health. [ 33 ] Unfortunately, as occurred in 2005, he left Kamloops and there was no follow-up. He did return to Kamloops in early 2008 and was seen again in emergency at the hospital with complaints of mood instability. He saw a psychiatrist and was encouraged to restart on his antipsychotic medications.

Religious preoccupation was a significant component at that time of his mental disorder. [ 34 ] In the past when his symptoms of mental disorder arose he occasionally sought comfort from members of the religious community. In 2008, while experiencing symptoms of his illness in Kamloops, he, in fact, sought comfort at the Sacred Heart Church and had a very positive experience. [ 35 ] Mr. Bandura was not taking any medications for his condition between the spring of 2008 and October of 2010. He had no medical or psychiatric follow-up during this timeframe. It was late September into early October of 2010 when Mr.

Bandura began to show signs that his mental condition was starting to deteriorate once again. His family was concerned that he started to become ambivalent and indecisive. Their concerns were confirmed when Mr. Bandura impulsively asked to be taken to Burnaby General Hospital on October 15, 2010. He was travelling on a bus to Metrotown with his girlfriend when he apparently, out of the blue, said he needed help and asked his girlfriend to take him to the hospital. [ 36 ] Mr. Bandura's memory of events started to get fuzzy around this time, but he does recall feeling that he needed help from the hospital.

He was not admitted and expressed disappointment or feeling disappointment that he was not admitted at that time. He was seen by a psychiatrist who held the opinion that Mr. Bandura may be presenting with mixed symptoms of mania and depression. He was started on mood stabilizing and antipsychotic medication and was requested to follow up on an outpatient basis in approximately one week. [ 37 ] Dr. Meldrum explained to the court in her evidence that it can take time for medications to take effect, especially on a low dose as was prescribed for Mr. Bandura - from anywhere from a few days to a few weeks.

The Bandura family was distressed that Mr. Bandura was not admitted to hospital in Burnaby as they were seeing signs that Mr. Bandura was becoming more religiously preoccupied, which, for the family, was a precursor to a full manic episode. [ 38 ] Following him leaving the Burnaby Hospital, the family noticed further symptoms of his deterioration. As an example, Mr. Bandura went for a long walk and, while doing so, lost the family pet and his wallet, both of which were highly uncharacteristic for him. Mr.

Bandura recalls that he was feeling depressed and irritable, at other times racy, and at other times slow during this period of time and at all times was feeling very distressed. [ 39 ] Mr. Bandura's family was concerned enough following his discharge, or non-admission I should say, to Burnaby General Hospital and his continuing deterioration that they took him to Vancouver General Hospital on October 20, 2010. Mr. Bandura agreed that he had a worsening of his depression. He held some vague suicidal thoughts. He agreed he needed to go back to the hospital for help.

His family expressed concern about his increasing preoccupation with religion. Once again, Mr. Bandura was not admitted to hospital, which disappointed him and his family. [ 40 ] Two days later, October 22, the family decided to bring Mr. Bandura to Kamloops where there was extended family and a hope that he might be admitted to Royal Inland Hospital where he was known to Kamloops Mental Health. By the time Mr. Bandura was transported to Kamloops, his condition had deteriorated significantly. He is described as laying in a foetal position for extended periods of time and was unresponsive to his family. [ 41 ] Mr.

Bandura has a very limited recall of anything from leaving Vancouver. His family noted that his mood began to change significantly. Mr. Bandura did have concerns about his physical health when he arrived in Kamloops. He went to a medical centre with vague physical concerns and everything turned out in that regard to be fine. [ 42 ] On October 22 at 5:30 p.m., Mr. Bandura's girlfriend and aunt brought him to the emergency department at Royal Inland Hospital. Since he had been seen at VGH two days earlier he had become manic with impaired sleep. He had racing thoughts.

He was examined by an emergency room physician and admitted to hospital. He was admitted as a voluntary patient under s. 20 of the British Columbia Mental Health Act . [ 43 ] After his family left that evening, Mr. Bandura fled the emergency department, not leaving through any of the unlocked accessible doors, but rather by breaking the window on a locked door and climbing through the small window that he had broken, cutting his hand significantly as he did so. He broke the glass window by punching it several times with his bare hands. He fled the hospital on foot. The time was 8:50 p.m. [ 44 ] Mr.

Bandura was next seen by a staff member at the Kamloops Christian Hostel in the downtown area of Kamloops 30 minutes later. Mr. Bandura was bleeding profusely from his right hand and bleeding a bit from his left hand. He asked the staff member at the hostel questions about the hostel. He also asked the staff member if the staff member was a Christian. He tried to use the telephone on the wall, but was asked to go wash the blood first. When he came back, he asked the staff member to place a call. It was long distance so the staff member declined. Mr.

Bandura then left, but before doing so the staff member gave him one or two pairs of latex gloves in order to cover his bleeding hands and hopefully stem the bleeding.

[ 45 ] Roughly 10 minutes later, Mr. Bandura arrived at the Sacred Heart Church. He told a person there he was looking for a priest and was directed to the rectory next door. Bishop Monroe was still in the church at that time and was told by the person that Mr. Bandura had approached that a man was looking for a priest. Bishop Monroe went immediately to the rectory to see him. [ 46 ] The only two people present in the rectory when Bishop Monroe was severely beaten were Bishop Monroe and Mr. Bandura. Bishop Monroe has very little recall of what happened because of the extent of his injuries. Mr.

Bandura has significant memory impairment as well because of his deteriorating mental state. [ 47 ] Dr. Meldrum testified that she was satisfied that Mr. Bandura's memory difficulties are as the result of his grossly disordered mental state at the time rather than any form of deliberate forgetting or circumventing the truth. I agree with her opinion in this regard. [ 48 ] As far as Mr. Bandura can recall, he has a flash of memory of being in a room at Royal Inland Hospital. He recalls feeling a drive like "pure energy" that made him go down along the hall.

He said he felt compelled, somehow driven, that he had to leave. He reports a flash of memory of punching a window, but is not entirely clear. At that point Mr. Bandura recalled feeling a state that he describes as “hysteria”. He recalls experiencing auditory hallucinations, describing voices in his head that were like "a stadium." He described this to Dr. Meldrum as experiencing multiple voices that were speaking all at the same time and the content was, to the best of his recollection now, indiscernible. [ 49 ] Mr.

Bandura does not know how he made the decision to go to the church, but assumes now that he went there for comfort as he had in the past when experiencing symptoms of his mental illness. He recalls now a man opening the door. He recalls begging for help and feeling escalating rage and despair when he came to believe this man would not help him. He recalls picking up a pen, but has no recall of striking the bishop with it. From there, Mr. Bandura describes feeling like a "black sheet" came over him. What is clear from the physical evidence in the rectory is that Mr.

Bandura was bleeding heavily as he assaulted Bishop Monroe in the kitchen area of the rectory. [ 50 ] In his rage, Mr. Bandura tore the door off the microwave oven and used it to strike the bishop. He also used a Pyrex glass bowl that was nearby. A footprint scar on the bishop's arm makes it clear that Mr. Bandura also kicked or stomped him during this event. [ 51 ] From the serious nature and extent of the bishop's injuries, which are described fully at paragraphs 27 and 28 of the filed admissions and depicted in the photographs, it is evident that Mr.

Bandura struck the bishop on numerous occasions with the items described and with his own person. [ 52 ] The bishop's cries for help were heard by Father Asomugha, a priest living in the rectory. In his haste to respond to the cries, this priest tripped on the stairs and ended up dislocating his shoulder. He managed to get down to the main floor and saw Bishop Monroe and Mr. Bandura struggling. He ran outside and alerted others when the panic alarm failed to function. Two people that he alerted ran into the rectory and saw Mr. Bandura trying to use the telephone and the bishop laying in a pool of blood.

These persons called 911 at 9:43 p.m. [ 53 ] After the assault, Mr. Bandura recalls throwing open the door of the rectory and the word "Run" being in his head. Mr. Bandura eventually made his way to the Red Bridge, jumped off it fully clothed into the North Thompson River at roughly 11:40 p.m. He swam across the river and made his way to his father's property, shedding his wet clothes along the way. He hid in his father's backyard shed where officers eventually found him crouched down holding his head in his hands at 1:00 a.m. The officers saw that Mr.

Bandura had an orange shirt on his head and was wearing several shirts and jackets. It was described in the admissions that he was shaking and emotional and did not immediately respond to the officers. [ 54 ] Mr. Bandura was arrested and made a spontaneous remark to one of the officers. He said: I thought I was dreaming. I was in the psych ward and the next thing I knew I was rolling around. [ 55 ] He was held in custody and interviewed by police roughly 15 hours later. Mr.

Bandura currently does not recall the content of what he said to the police, but has now had an opportunity in court to watch the video recording. I have had the benefit of watching Mr. Bandura's recorded statement, which has been marked as an exhibit in these proceedings, and I found it extremely helpful. [ 56 ] Dr. Meldrum found evidence of a disordered mental state throughout Mr. Bandura's interview, both the content of the interview, what was said, and also by observing his mood. I agree completely. Mr. Bandura spoke of various things that were clearly not true, that were clearly the subject of delusions.

He spoke of his parents beating him as an infant and slipping him LSD, which is clearly false and Mr. Bandura now recognizes as delusional ideation. He also spoke during the interview of being possessed by Satan and needing to accept Jesus Christ as his saviour, consistent with his prior episodes and one of the hallmarks of his illness when he is manic and psychotic. [ 57 ] I see evidence of his religious preoccupation throughout the video. For example, at one point he told the officer that he felt he was given commands from God to drink a holy man's blood.

He believed he stabbed the bishop in the throat and drank his blood because he needed a little “pick-me-up” from depression and that he needed: ... that rich man's pure blood to actually let my mind know that I am not depressed. It was almost as if God was telling me to just have a taste because I was so depressed. [ 58 ] Clearly, this did not happen. Another example in the interview while discussing the voices in his head, Mr. Bandura said, and I quote: It was like God's direct voice kind of just telling me not to feel ashamed anymore and to, "Just rise up and live your life." [ 59 ] Mr.

Bandura also made a number of other bizarre references in his interview including references to witchcraft, the cutting of flesh, and to his ring that he was wearing on his hand being the mark of the beast.

[ 60 ] His mood in the interview with the officer reflects what Dr. Meldrum described as an inflated self-esteem and which the officer, Constable Kube, described as confident or cocky. This is consistent with the manic phase of Mr. Bandura's illness. [ 61 ] Mr. Bandura was brought to court in the custody of Corrections on October 25, 2010. Four sheriffs were required to manage him. He is described as looking very disturbed, disorganized, and was combative. He was in a similar state when taken to Kamloops Regional Correctional Centre where he assaulted a number of prison guards.

While in custody at KRCC and then later at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital, Mr. Bandura was described as overtly manic and psychotic. He was combative and in need of restraint. [ 62 ] Dr. Meldrum, whose evidence I found extremely helpful and thorough, first saw Mr. Bandura at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital when he arrived on October 27, 2010. She described him as being in very bad shape. He was wearing a full body shackle, a special helmet required due to self-injurious conduct. He was described as acutely mentally disordered, believing he was the son of God. He was extreme in his emotions.

He would go from weeping to expansiveness in a very short period of time. [ 63 ] He was immediately certified under the Mental Health Act on admission and placed into seclusion for nine days because of the severity of his mental disorder and of the risk of harm that he posed. [ 64 ] Dr. Meldrum described the early phases of Mr. Bandura's admission at page 6 of her NCRMD report as follows: Mr. Bandura did attempt to assault staff because of his manic and psychotic symptoms. He was voicing delusions that he had a special relationship to God, perhaps was the son of God, and was experiencing auditory hallucinations.

He was showing evidence of behavioural manifestations of mania and psychosis as well as thought disorder. The observation of his behaviour and his description of his symptoms was characteristic of what is known of bipolar disorder and Mr. Bandura's past history. His course in hospital was entirely predictable given his past history and what is known of bipolar disorder and he has responded to medication in a way that is characteristic of bipolar disorder. [ 65 ] I was impressed to know that Dr. Meldrum had seen Mr. Bandura well over two dozen times prior to her attendance in court. She told the court that Mr.

Bandura remains certified under the Mental Health Act , but has been receiving treatment since his arrival. [ 66 ] Mr. Bandura is now a substantially different man than he was when he first arrived there. He is not cocky. He is described as humbled, ashamed, remorseful, and as displaying appropriate reactions when he learned of his actions while ill. He is no longer psychotic. His thinking is organized and he is not exhibiting signs of depression or mania. [ 67 ] Turning now to my decision, the first aspect that I need to be satisfied on a balance of probabilities is that Mr.

Bandura was suffering from a mental disorder at the time he committed these acts. Both Crown and defence agree that the evidence proves this. Dr. Meldrum opined that at the time of the offence Mr. Bandura was suffering from a bipolar mood disorder which she describes as a severe mental disorder. [ 68 ] She based her opinion on all of the material before me at the hearing and all of the material that I spent the last roughly 30 minutes reviewing. She found the information from Mr. Bandura's family members to be reliable. So do I. She found Mr. Bandura to not be malingering, and I also agree.

She found all of the collateral information to be reliable. So do I. Finally, Dr. Meldrum concluded that Mr. Bandura was severely ill suffering from a mixed manic and depressive episode with psychosis at the time of the offence. [ 69 ] As I say, I must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities of the existence of the mental disorder at the time of the offence. The evidence is quite overwhelming. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Mr. Bandura was suffering from a severe mental disorder at the time of the offence based on all of the evidence before me. [ 70 ] That does not end the matter.

I have to determine whether or not Mr. Bandura's mental disorder rendered him incapable of knowing that his actions were wrong. "Wrong" means more than simply contrary to the law. "Wrong" means contrary to the moral standards of reasonable men and women. [ 71 ] The question for me to decide and the crux of this entire case is whether Mr.

Bandura's mental disorder so obstructed his thought process as to render him incapable of knowing that his actions would be considered wrong by the ordinary moral standards of reasonable people. [ 72 ] I have the benefit of a large body of reliable evidence, the body of evidence from Mr. Bandura's family members about his history, about his deteriorating mental state leading up to the offence. I have clear and uncontroverted evidence from Dr. Meldrum. She based her opinion on a careful review of all of his history and reliable collateral information. [ 73 ] I also had the benefit of the videotaped statement Mr.

Bandura gave a short time after the offence. It is clear that Mr. Bandura was at the time experiencing auditory hallucinations and delusions that led him to operate on God's direct command. He had commands that he needed to drink the blood of a holy man. He did not do this, but he did severely beat Bishop Monroe, who was a stranger to him. Mr. Bandura had no rational motive to commit this act. After his attack, he fled to the river, jumped in to cleanse himself.

These are actions consistent with his prior behaviour while in the throes of a psychotic episode. [ 74 ] In addition to all of the material I have reviewed, I also have the benefit of information from Mr. Bandura, now that he is recovering, about what was going through his mind at the time of the offence and I have covered that already. There is no suggestion that Mr. Bandura is malingering or trying to paint himself in a better light. He has been forthcoming with Dr. Meldrum and expresses remorse over what he has done. [ 75 ] Dr. Meldrum found that Mr.

Bandura at the time of the offence was experiencing delusions and auditory hallucinations, psychomotor agitation, grossly impaired judgment, and was markedly impulsive because of the nature of his illness. He was severely ill suffering from a mixed manic and depressive episode with psychosis. In her opinion, Mr. Bandura was so severely ill that he lacked the capacity to apply any rational knowledge he had of the wrongfulness of his acts to his behaviour. In other words, her opinion is that Mr. Bandura was incapable of knowing his acts were morally wrong.

[ 76 ] I must be satisfied on the evidence before me that it is more likely than not that he was unable to appreciate that at the time he beat Bishop Monroe it was morally wrong to do so. I find the evidence to not only prove this on a balance of probabilities, but in my mind it proves it beyond all reasonable doubt. [ 77 ] The evidence is overwhelming. Dr. Meldrum's evidence has been careful and thorough. She is confident in her opinion. There is no evidence to suggest that the defence of mental disorder has been concocted or exaggerated in any way. [ 78 ] I fully accept that Mr.

Bandura's activities that night were motivated by his severe mental illness. His delusions led him to seriously assault a stranger to him, Bishop Monroe. His delusions rendered him unable to make a rational choice about whether to do it or not. In other words, Mr. Bandura was at the time incapable of knowing that this act was morally wrong. [ 79 ] Therefore, I find Mr. Bandura did commit mischief, aggravated assault, and assault with a weapon upon Bishop David Monroe as described in Information 91251-C-2, but is not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder on all three counts. [REASONS CONCLUDED]