Found not criminally responsible five times since 2013, Isaac Brouillard Lessard had to respect release conditions determined by the Commission for the Examination of Mental Disorders (CETM) at the time he killed Sergeant Maureen Breau before being shot during a police operation in Louiseville. During the days preceding the tragedy, the police did not use their power to hospitalize the latter even though his relatives said he was in psychosis. They were unaware of the very existence of the CETM, which is not addressed in the police training program.
Three of the four police officers who intervened with Mr. Brouillard Lessard did not know what the acronym CETM meant at the time of the events. During the public inquiry into the death of officer Maureen Breau, which ended on March 21, the police officers who intervened with Mr. Brouillard Lessard three days before the tragedy, but also on the day of the tragedy, were called to testify.
“CETM is the first time I’ve heard this discussed around the table. I just found out what it was. It’s all well and good to say “CETM”, but you have to know what it is,” declared patrol officer Élodie Lévesque during of his testimony at the public inquiry into the tragedy.
Three days before the tragedy, the three police officers who came to the home of Isaac Brouillard Lessard believe that they have no reason to intervene with the young man suffering from schizoaffective disorder, despite calls from his worried parents because of the 400 threatening texts and voice messages they received.
“The three of us went out [agents] and we asked ourselves: do you think we should apply a P-38? The three of us looked at each other and had the same reaction. It was no. Absolutely not. We have nothing. We have nothing to apply a P-38. It was not a long discussion, we got along straight away,” said agent William Berrouard during his testimony before coroner Géhane Kamel.
Law P-38 to which Agent Berrouard refers allows doctors to ask a judge to require the hospitalization of a patient who does not want to be treated if he presents an imminent danger to himself or herself. for other people. However, in the case of Isaac Brouillard Lessard, the police were completely unaware that they had the power to take him to the hospital responsible for his file without using the P-38 since he was contravening two of the conditions of releases imposed by the CETM, namely to keep the peace and abstain from using drugs.
“This is where we ask a lot of the police, that is to say, to understand the threat coming from someone who has problems [de santé mentale], it’s not the same as someone else threatening in the same way. I think it is much more at the clinical level that we must look at these text messages, than at the purely criminal level. I find that this is the mistake we are making,” considers Anne Crocker, director of research and university teaching at the Philippe-Pinel Institute of Forensic Psychiatry.
“We take the same glasses to look at different cases and we ask for the same judgment,” adds the researcher.
Mme Crocker suggests that police officers should not be the only ones to decide whether the threat is present or not. “We must listen to the families and the clinical teams must be identified quickly, made aware of the file and assess the patient because at that point, they have the power to bring someone back,” she believes.
A point of view shared by Michael Arruda, police officer from Montreal, retired and crisis intervention specialist, who was called to testify as part of the coroner’s public inquiry. “Is a police officer capable of carrying out a risk assessment? That’s the question,” he says in an interview. “Currently, the police are not able to tell if a person is dangerous with the information they have. As I told the coroner, someone who has a mental health problem can very well control themselves during a crisis when they see the police. When a parent calls and says: “My son is in psychosis”, the police officer thinks that the person is beside himself, doing strange things, telling incoherent stories. And then he arrives, the person is sitting, then he smokes his cigarette and he says: “No, no, everything is fine.” The policeman says, “OK, great, the person looks OK,” then leaves. However, the person is extremely dangerous,” observes Mr. Arruda.
Law P-38, he recalls, was notably put in place because the police are not able to assess the danger.
A lack of knowledge
When Mme Kamel asked him if he was aware that he could use a breach of a CETM order, agent Berrouard was categorical: “No, I didn’t know about that at all, the CETM and all these things- there, at the time of my intervention,” he says.
This lack of knowledge of the CETM does not surprise Michael Arruda for a second, “Generally speaking, the police do not know this. These are not subjects that we deal with on a regular basis,” says the ex-police officer.
The Quebec National Police Academy also confirmed to us that it does not address CETM in its teaching. “The specificities surrounding police work with people found not criminally responsible are not addressed in the program nor in police development training related to work with people whose mental state is disturbed,” explains Véronique Brunet, head of the office. of the registrar and communications of the National Police Academy of Quebec.
However, there is a document entitled Process between the Mental Disorders Examination Commission and the Quebec Police Information Center which is attached to the Guide to police practicesthe support and reference bible aimed at harmonizing police practices in Quebec.
The information contained in CETM decisions regarding people who have received a verdict of not criminally responsible has been registered with the Quebec Police Intelligence Center (CRPQ) since 2009 “for public safety”. This information is sent by email by the Administrative Tribunal of Quebec to the police forces concerned. The police are thus able to know if the release of the person not criminally responsible is unconditional, conditional or if he or she must remain in detention in a hospital. The terms of release or detention are specified. During the annual review of the file, police forces must receive updated information in the CRPQ.
The CETM may delegate part of its powers to the hospital manager to relax or restrict a person’s freedom. This information is also indicated in the CRPQ.
“According to article 672.91 of the Criminal Code, the police officer can arrest the person without a warrant in the event of failure to comply with the decision of the CETM,” specifies the document consulted by The duty, although it is not accessible to the public for security reasons. The police officer can either force her to appear before a justice of the peace by summons or summons to appear, or deliver her to the place mentioned in the decision.
A form for reporting breaches of a CETM order must be completed by the person responsible for the designated hospital so that the police can locate the person concerned.
Contacted by The dutythe Sûreté du Québec (SQ) confirms that all police officers do indeed have access to this information via the CRPQ.
“The information contained in CETM decisions is sent directly to police agencies, via their email address, as soon as the decision is received from the court. Since the conditions of a person subject to a CETM order must be provided to the CRPQ, they can be consulted by patrol officers and, consequently, 911 service authorities or call centers. Agents can, depending on the circumstances, contact the hospitals designated by the CETM,” indicates Ann Mathieu, spokesperson for the SQ.