Prison Discipline Punishes the Mentally Ill: A Call for Oversight in British Columbia’s Provincial Correctional Centres

The Correction Act Regulation includes a disciplinary process with the purpose of maintaining the order within provincial correctional centres in British Columbia (BC). Section 21 of the Regulation sets out prison rules, about 28 of them, that inmates are not permitted to breach while in custody. This process, particularly when applied to inmates in isolation with complex mental health needs, including those involuntarily certified under the Mental Health Act (MHA) and awaiting bedspace at forensic psychiatric facilities, has become a punitive and harmful mechanism, rather than a corrective one. 

Within the criminal law context, expert evidence is generally required to establish that an inmate was suffering from “a disease of the mind” and was either incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or was incapable of knowing that the act was wrong when committed. It is unlikely, however, in a disciplinary proceeding that an inmate can tender expert evidence in the form of a psychiatric report. Most inmates are self-represented, unable to retain or afford legal counsel. Prisoners’ Legal Services, with limited staffing, is the only clinic that provides free legal representation to inmates in their disciplinary proceedings in BC. Over a two-year period, out of the 892 cases that I presided over, only 31 inmates had legal representation. The lack of legal representation effectively denies many of the most vulnerable inmates their right to a fair hearing and for their mental health challenges to be understood by the correctional centre. 

The prevailing access to justice issue means that evidence of a mental disorder or the lack of mental capacity at the time of the alleged prison rule breach will be described by correctional staff who are familiar with the inmate and their mental health needs. Correctional staff utilize the Clinical Global Impression-Corrections (CGI-C), a clinical measurement tool adapted for correctional settings for rating the severity of mental disorders. The lay opinion evidence of correctional staff, however, is not reliable because they are not educated or trained in recognizing or diagnosing mental disorders. This is further compounded by their lack of impartiality of that evidence due to strong institutional pressures for convictions and “to get the job done” by moving through cases to prevent administrative backlogs. The reliance on correctional staff for mental health assessments undermines the foundational legal principle of the right of an accused person to have a fair hearing. 

Even if the decider in the disciplinary process relies on correctional staff evidence, the threshold is high for establishing that an inmate was not “criminally responsible” by reason of mental disorder or illness. Evidence that an inmate was involuntarily admitted under section 22 of the MHA is often insufficient because it cannot be determinative of whether the inmate had sufficient capacity at the time of the allegation. Consequently, when issues of mental disorder or capacity arise, they are considered mitigating factors in the penalty (sentencing) phase of the disciplinary proceeding. 

Once convicted of the prison rule breach, the penalties available that can be imposed for an inmate with complex mental health needs confined in isolation, include a warning, segregation, or loss of earned remission (effectively extending an inmate’s sentence of incarceration). Imposing these penalties is contrary to the corrective function of the disciplinary process, that is, to support an inmate in correcting their behaviour. Instead, the process becomes an administrative record-keeping mechanism by which the correctional centres create an internal record of the inmate’s conduct, which can, for example, negatively impact their classification status, transfer to a lower security institution, and pending criminal matters. 

Conditions of confinement in isolation are akin to segregation (confinement for 22 hours or more a day without meaningful human contact). Inmates certified under the MHA and awaiting bedspace at forensic psychiatric facilities or experiencing suicidal ideation and engaging in self-harm are confined in isolation under medical observation. Section 17 of the Regulation gives the correctional centres authority to separately confine inmates for 72 hours for medical reasons. Correctional staff in charge can extend the 72 hour period to long term separate confinement for one or more periods of 15 days each. Imposing a concurrent segregation term as a penalty for the prison rule breach reinforces the harmful institutional practice of segregating inmates with mental disabilities. 

The disciplinary process is meant to be corrective. Yet, convicting inmates with complex mental health needs in isolation is a form of punishment. When a process designed to support constructive behaviour becomes a tool for punishment, it signals a profound misalignment with the principles of rehabilitation and humane treatment. The charge approval process requires independent and external oversight to ensure that the disciplinary process is being correctly and appropriately utilized. How we treat our most vulnerable speaks volumes about our shared humanity and values.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this blog post are solely my own and do not reflect the views or opinions of my former employer, BC Corrections. The contents are based on my personal knowledge and experience working for BC Corrections as an Independent Chairperson, from 2021 - 2023. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only and under no circumstances can be relied upon for legal decision-making. Readers are advised to consult with a lawyer and obtain a written opinion concerning the specifics of their particular situation.