The Advisory Review Board and characteristics of patients on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor in Ontario.

In recent years, much attention has been focused on the mentally ill offender, particularly those found "not guilty by reason of insanity" and "unfit to stand trial." The more recent trial and verdict involving John Hinckley, Jr., in the United States, has given momentum to the desire on the part of some to completely change the system. In Canada, the 1976 report of the Law Reform Commission on Mental Disorder in the Criminal Process' is still regarded by some as the blueprint for change. This article is an analysis of the Ontario Advisory Review Board and a description of persons held on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor in that province. The Crj minal Code of Canada, 2 specifically Section 16, defines the criteria for mentally ill individuals who came into contact with the law. While the Criminal Code defines the law in terms of the mentally ill offender, it also permits the provinces of the country to develop specific laws and regulations under provincial jurisdiction. This is usually done under the appropriate provincia] mental health legislation. The system in Ontario is one of the oldest and has the largest number of cases on warrants of the Lieutenant Governor in Canada (LGW). Under legislative guidelines provided in the Criminal Code and developed by this individual province, an Advisory Board of Review, consisting (in Ontario) ofa supreme court judge as chairman, two psychiatrists, a member of the provincial bar, and a layman, is appointed to review each person held under a warrant of the Lieutenant Governor anually, sometimes more often, and to make recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor-inCouncil, with regard to each individual. The Lieutenant Governor or Lieutenant Governor-in-Council (cabinet) mayor may not accept the recommendations of the Board. The Board reviews each individual using the following criteria: (1) fitness: Is he now fit? That is, has he recovered from his mental illness enough to stand trial?; (2) dangerousness: Is he a danger to himself or to society?; and (3) public interest: Is it in the interest of the public to release the individual? Persons held under these warrants are rarely released from the maximum