Background
Gabriel Hunter Gibson was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder in 2018 for assault and attempted abduction of a child under 16. The offences arose from a 2016 incident in which she grabbed a four-year-old child on a bus while claiming he was her son. Since the verdict, she has remained at the Forensic Psychiatric Hospital under successive custody dispositions.
Following its 2025 annual review, the British Columbia Review Board found that Gibson continued to present a significant threat to public safety and ordered her continued detention, with conditions including escorted community access. Although the Board recognized her improved stability and medication compliance, it relied on her continuing delusions, poor insight, history of substance misuse and violence, recent assaults on hospital staff, and the inadequacy of her proposed community housing and support plan. Gibson appealed, seeking an absolute or conditional discharge and arguing that she was stable, no longer psychotic, and not a threat.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. It held that Gibson had identified no error of law or miscarriage of justice and had not shown that the Board’s disposition was unreasonable or unsupported by the evidence under s. 672.78(1) of the Criminal Code.
The Board reasonably concluded that Gibson’s risk could not yet be managed in the community. Its decision was supported by clinical evidence that she remained delusional, had limited insight, faced risks of medication noncompliance and renewed substance use under stress, and required close professional monitoring. The Court emphasized that Review Board risk assessments attract considerable appellate deference and that the appeal concerned the evidence available in September 2025, not Gibson’s subsequent progress.
Key Takeaways
- A Review Board may continue an NCR accused’s detention when the evidence supports a risk of serious physical or psychological harm that cannot adequately be managed in the community.
- Recent stability and medication compliance do not compel discharge where continuing delusions, limited insight, violent incidents, relapse risks, and an insufficient release plan remain.
- An appellate court reviews the disposition on the record before the Review Board; later progress is properly considered at the next mandatory annual review.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates the substantial deference appellate courts give Review Boards in assessing public-safety risks and determining the supervision needed for an accused found not criminally responsible. A lengthy period of detention does not itself justify release when the statutory significant-threat test remains satisfied.
It also underscores the importance of a concrete, professionally supported community plan. Evidence of improvement can affect future annual reviews, but discharge requires a plan capable of managing the person’s identified risks outside custody.