The Umpires Strike Back: Canadian Judicial Experience with Risk-Assessment Instruments

Abstract

As Canadian correctional policy makers have begun to embed usage of risk-assessment instruments in various forms of penal and probation decision making, judges are frequently being asked to rule upon their admissibility and evidentiary relevance in a variety of contexts, most particularly sentencing. Judges have commented in a number of contexts to date: non-disclosure (by counsel or by correctional officials) of the fact that a risk-assessment instrument is being used; the use of “ministry override” policies for certain offences; the qualifications of the assessor; and the information used to formulate the assessment. At a broader level, judges have joined academic commentators in expressing concerns that over-reliance on risk assessment may trump proportionality.