Dr. Arrowood

The Crown appealed a dangerous offender sentence, arguing the sentencing judge applied the wrong legal standard ("reasonable possibility" instead of "reasonable expectation") when determining if a lesser measure than indeterminate detention would adequately protect the public.

The Court of Appeal found the sentencing judge erred in law by applying a less rigorous standard and by relying on speculative evidence of treatability and manageability.

The appeal was allowed, and a sentence of indeterminate detention was substituted.

The accused was charged with six offences arising from a home invasion, robbery, forcible confinement, and kidnapping for ransom.

The accused admitted committing the actus reus of all charges but raised a defence of not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder under section 16 of the Criminal Code.

The accused claimed he suffered from delusional disorder and believed he was on a mission assigned by Chinese anti-corruption authorities to locate and apprehend corrupt Chinese officials in Canada.

The trial proceeded in two phases: the first addressing the Crown's case and the accused's testimony; the second addressing psychiatric evidence.

The court found the accused guilty on all counts, rejecting the NCR defence after finding the accused's account of his motivations was not credible and that he had not proven on a balance of probabilities that his mental disorder deprived him of the capacity to know his actions were wrong according to Canadian societal standards.