BC Court Reporter - Bill Lim - Tues8Dec2020

The BC Court Reporter for LASO 204 Students

Bill Lim reporting for the BC Court Reporter for

LASO 204 Students evening news.
Today we have a case of Regina versus
Kampos. It is still under sub judice so the case
is yet to be concluded.

Sub judice - is a Latin phrase meaning "under

judgment”. This means the final verdict for the
case is still under review, has not been given
yet.

In this hearing the Defence for Mr. Peter

Anthony Kampos,
submitted that Mr. Kampos is unfit to stand trial.
The Defence states that Mr. Kampos believes
his counsel is intentionally withholding evidence
and is working with others to sabotage his
defence, and refused to communicate with his
counsel.
unfit to stand trial = inability on account of
mental disorder to:
1) understand the nature or object of the
proceedings;
2) understand the possible consequences of
the proceedings;
or
3) communicate with counsel [.]
section
672.22(2) of Code

The burden of proof that an accused person is unfit

to stand trial is on the party making the application
for such a finding: s. 672.23(2) of the Code.

The hearings for Mr. Kampos fitness to stand trial

took place on December 4, 2018 whereby s.
672.23(1) of the Code, and this continued on March
15, 2019.

s. 672.23(1) - Where the court has reasonable

grounds, at any stage of the proceedings before a
verdict is rendered, to believe that the accused is
unfit to stand trial, the court may direct, of its own
motion or on application of the accused or the
prosecutor, that the issue of fitness of the accused be
tried.

On May 6, 2019, the Review Board held a hearing in

pursuant of s.672.47(2) of the Code.

s. 672.47(2) - Where the court is satisfied that there

are exceptional circumstances that warrant it, the
court may extend the time for holding a hearing
under subsection (1) to a maximum of ninety days
after the verdict was rendered.

On December 4, 2019 the Review Board held a

further hearing pursuant to s. 672.63 of the Code.
s. 672.63 - A disposition shall come into force on the
day that it is made or on any later day that the court
or Review Board specifies in it, and shall remain in
force until the date of expiration that the disposition
specifies or until the Review Board holds a hearing
pursuant to section 672.47 or 672.81.
s. 672.81(1) - A Review Board shall hold a hearing
not later than twelve months after making a
disposition and every twelve months thereafter for as
long as the disposition remains in force, to review
any disposition that it has made in respect of an
accused, other than an absolute discharge under
paragraph 672.54(a).
The question of whether Mr. Kampos was fit to
stand trial was partly based on three cases which
acted as parameters to the question of whether Mr.
Kampos was unfit to stand trial.

In the first case cited, R. v. Taylor, the limited

cognitive capacity test was considered the standard
to be used.

limited cognitive capacity test - the accused is only

required to be capable to understand the legal
process and to communicate with his counsel; the
accused need not be capable of exercising analytical
reasoning in making a choice to accept the advice of
counsel or in coming to a decision that best serves
her interest.

In the second case, R. v. Daley, again, the question

of the ability of the accused to communicate with his
counsel is brought up, and the court found that the
ability to communicate with his counsel did not take
into account of the possibility of delusions that may
impair on that communication line.

delusion
-A diseased state of the mind, in which persons belie
ve things to exist, which exist only, or in the degree t
hey are conceived of only in their own imaginations, 
with a persuasion so fixed and firm, that neither evid
ence nor argument can convince them to the contrary
.

Therefore, on the basis of R. v. Morrissey, that was

the precedent that was used in R. v. Daley, the court
held that “meaningful presence and meaningful
participation at the trial ...are the touchstones of the
inquiry into fitness” [19, Kampos]

Moreover, the hearing consist of the evidence from

two psychiatrists: Dr. Gharackhanian, Mr.
Kampos’s treating psychiatrist, and Dr. Murphy,
who acted for the Crown. Although they agreed that
Mr. Kampos suffers from paranoid schizophrenia,
that Mr. Kampos benefited from the treatments at
FPH (Forensic Psychiatric Hospital), but that he
remained psychotic, in that the intensity and the
relevance of his delusions and auditory
hallucinations have been attenuated and no longer
bothered Mr. Kampos. Overall, they felt that his
delusions no longer acted as an obstacle to Mr.
Kampos’s ability to understand the nature, the object
and the possible consequences of the proceedings.
Thus, both of them agreed that Mr. Kampos is
“marginally” fit and will see improvements over
time. However, Dr. Gaharackhanian already is on
the view that Mr. Kampos has the capacity to
establish effective communication with counsel, and
convey the necessary information to the offence in a
way that counsel could apply for his defence.

On the other hand, Dr. Murphy is at the view that

Mr. Kampos is still keeping the delusion that his
counsel is working in a way that is contrary to Mr.
Kampos’s welfare. In fact, Mr. Kampos wanted to
proceed with the trial using a NCRMD defence,
rather than discussing the case further with his
counsel.

NCRMD - Not criminally responsible on account of

mental disorder
There were other cases were reviewed in this or
previous hearings was the R.M.P. case, in which the
court adopted the following version of the “limited
cognitive capacity test”, from which the first
sentence reads:

Under the “limited cognitive capacity” test

propounded by the amicus curiae, the presence of
delusions
do not vitiate the accused’s fitness to stand trial
unless the delusion distorts the accused’s
rudimentary
understanding of the judicial process.

amicus curiae - Latin for "friend of the court."

Plural is "amici curiae." Frequently, a person or
group who is not a party to an action, but has a
strong interest in the matter, will petition the court
for permission to submit a brief in the action with
the intent of influencing the court's decision

From the unanimous agreement that Mr. Kampos

was only mentally marginally fit by the two
psychiatrists, and the cases of Taylor, Daley, and
Morrissey reviewed in court, Judge Delvin felt that
because Mr. Kampos still had chronic delusions of
his counsel, that Mr. Kampos will need to yet
continue to have treatment at FPH to improve on Mr.
Kampos condition to have meaningful and rational
participation with his counsel and with the
proceedings. As of on the Date of September 25,
2020, Judge Delvin states that to force Mr. Kampos
to “continue with his [Mr. Kampos] trial would
violate trial fairness, which underlies the fitness
rules.”

As a result, Judge Delvin referred Mr. Kampos’s

case back to the Review Board and ordered the
Review Board to hold another hearing 90 days from
the date (September 25, 2020) pursuant to s.
672.47(2) of the Code.

Questions for the Class

1. Which test is the higher standard for being fit for
trial?
a) limited cognitive capacity test
b) analytic capacity test

Ans. 1) b;
 2. Which case was the initial one that instigated the
limited cognitive capacity test?
a) Taylor
b) Daley
c) Morrissey

Ans. 2) a;

3. Which case determined that the limited capacity

test standards were too low a threshold set and that
meaningful participation has to be considered to be
defined as being fit for trial?
a) Taylor
b) Daley
c) Morrissey

Ans. 3) c;

4. Which parameter is included under the ruling of

s.672.22(2)
. a) the accused and counsel have an amicable and
trusting relationshipb) the accused has been
cooperative with counselc) communicate with
counsel
Ans. 4) c;
5. What is s. 672.23(1) about?
a) Where the court is satisfied that there are
exceptional circumstances that warrant it, the court
may extend the time for holding a hearing under
subsection (1) to a maximum of ninety days after the
verdict was rendered.
b) A disposition shall come into force on the day that
it is made or on any later day that the court or
Review Board specifies in it, and shall remain in
force until the date of expiration that the disposition
specifies or until the Review Board holds a hearing
pursuant to section 672.47 or 672.81.
c) Where the court has reasonable grounds, at any
stage of the proceedings before a verdict is rendered,
to believe that the accused is unfit to stand trial, the
court may direct, of its own motion or on application
of the accused or the prosecutor, that the issue of
fitness of the accused be tried.

Ans. 5) c;

6. What rule did Judge Delvin feel would be

violated if Mr. Kampos was put on trial at that time?

a) Charter of Rights;
b) Canadian Constitution;
c) trial fairness based on the fitness rules

Ans. 6) c