Author Archives: Glen Luther

About Glen Luther

LL.B. (Saskatchewan, 1981), LL.M. (Queen's, 1986), Q.C. Associate Professor, College of Law, Associate Member Department of Psychiatry, Executive Committee Centre for Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies , Member Saskatchewan (NCR) Review Board, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. Email: glen.luther@usask.ca; Website: here Professor Luther has published extensively in the criminal procedure area. His academic interests include police powers, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, criminal law and sentencing, trial procedure, evidence, and Law and Psychiatry. Professor Luther joined the faculty of the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan in 2003 having previously held teaching positions at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand, and the University of Calgary. He has extensive practice experience as a criminal lawyer having practiced in Lloydminster (his hometown) from 1981-1984 and Calgary, Alberta, from 1989 – 2003 and since that time on an occasional basis in Saskatchewan. He has argued cases throughout Alberta and Saskatchewan at all levels of courts including the Supreme Court of Canada. Currently his practice is limited to consulting with other counsel and assisting them in the presentation of cases before the courts. He is a member of the Law Societies of both Saskatchewan and Alberta (non-practicing) and has been very active in numerous professional associations, most recently with the Saskatchewan Trial Lawyers Association (STLA). He regularly presents at judicial conferences through the National Judicial Institute (NJI) and the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges (CAPCJ). He was for many years a team leader in the Intensive Trial Advocacy Programme for practicing lawyers at the University of Calgary. He has published extensively in the criminal procedure area. His book, Detention and Arrest, co-authored with Professor Steve Coughlan of Dalhousie University, was published in 2010 by Irwin Law. He is an Associate Member of the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Saskatchewan and a member of the Criminal Code Saskatchewan Review Board. He is a close collaborator with Dr. Mansfield Mela, forensic psychiatrist, (here) and they co-teach the Law and Psychiatry Seminars together to both law students and psychiatric residents. He is on the executive committee of the Centre for Forensic Behavioural Sciences and Justice Studies at the University (here). Professor Luther has received several awards for teaching excellence and in 2009 was appointed Queen’s Counsel for the Province of Saskatchewan. He is a Board member of Saskatoon’s CLASSIC legal assistance clinic (here) and a descendant of the Ojibway Nation near Sarnia, Ontario.

Mental Illness and Sentencing: Blaming the Mentally Ill for their Lack of Cooperation with Inadequate Treatment in R v Maier

By: Glen Luther, Q.C. and Dr. Mansfield Mela

PDF Version: Mental Illness and Sentencing: Blaming the Mentally Ill for their Lack of Cooperation with Inadequate Treatment in R v Maier

Case Commented On: R v Maier, 2015 ABCA 59

Mental illness presents a difficult issue for the sentencing judge. The Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46 requires that in sentencing an accused a court must apply the fundamental principle of sentencing, contained in s. 718.1, which requires that:

A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.

In sentencing a mentally ill offender who has been convicted of an offence a judge must decide on the degree of responsibility of the offender and balance that against the gravity of the offence. It is clear of course that many mentally ill individuals are in fact guilty of the offence they committed as the provisions of s.16 of the Code relating to criminal responsibility are very narrow and exempt only the rare individual from being seen as having committed their crime. How then do we sentence the guilty but mentally ill offender and how do we decide how responsible they are for the offending behaviour?

Continue reading