With the trial of the perpetrator of the attack at Winnipeg’s Seven Oaks Hospital concluding in 2021, legal experts recommend using the high-risk defendant designation with caution.

Trevor Robert Farley received the appointment on Wednesday after he was found not criminally responsible for the murder of his two parents and the attempted murder of his former boss due to mental health issues.

For Toronto lawyer and Law and Mental Disorder Association president Anita Szigeti, being labeled a high-risk defendant may amount to something a life sentence.

There is no real way out at the moment.

If a defendant is found not to be criminally responsible, a provincial review board is responsible for following up and assessing whether the person can benefit from more freedom.

However, if a defendant is considered particularly vulnerable, he or she must be placed in a psychiatric facility, a situation that can only be changed by a higher court.

Anita Szigeti, one of her clients who received the designation, argues that using the designation makes it much more difficult for a defendant to prove that they no longer pose a risk.

The lawyer explains that in order for a high-risk defendant to benefit from greater freedom, he must convince a commission, which then makes a recommendation to the court, that he does not pose a danger to the public.

Anita Szigeti emphasizes that this is a paradoxical situation since, to prove this, the defendant can leave the facility where he is being held, which is not possible without the consent of the court.

This means that this person will never get out of there […] This is a much more serious and hopeless situation than the Criminal Code suggests.

A Lack of trust

Toronto-based criminal defense attorney Stephanie DiGiuseppe believes using the high-risk rating works in one’s favor Lack of trust to provincial review boards that evaluate individuals found not criminally responsible.

This process bypasses the assessment work carried out by highly specialized medical experts and gives the court the power to deprive defendants of even the smallest freedom.

Stephanie DiGiuseppe therefore believes that even a defendant who has made progress in treating his mental health problems will have difficulty benefiting from greater freedoms if he has been classified as a high-risk patient.

It’s not just about the difference between life in a hospital and complete freedom. These can be small differences, such as the opportunity to take a walk around the neighborhood every now and thenshe claims.

More responsibility

According to Kevin Westel, a Vancouver-based criminal defense lawyer, being classified as a high-danger is not a crime Lack of trust towards the other parties involved.

He believes this will place more responsibility on the justice system and the judges in the cases in which it is used.

The judiciary and the judge hearing the case have the responsibility to determine whether a defendant poses a significant danger to the publiche said.

This allows the judge to determine that the defendant is not criminally guilty, but does not give health facilities or doctors the right to decide whether the defendant can be released for a daythe lawyer continues.

However, Kevin Westel, like attorneys Stephanie DiGiuseppe and Anita Szigeti, believe the high-risk designation should be used with caution. The lawyer believes that it should be reserved for cases where its use is actually justified.

With information from Caitlyn Gowriluk