A trial judge assessing whether the question of unfitness has been raised in good faith under s 10(2) of the MHFP Act may reject a psychiatrist's opinion on the basis that the accused's presentation was pretended, relying on the judge's own observations and the court record, without first requiring cross-examination of the psychiatrist. The good faith determination falls outside the adversarial process. Where a psychiatrist's opinion is founded on a pretended presentation, it cannot give rise to a 'real and substantial' concern as to unfitness sufficient to engage the presumption of good faith identified in R v Tier and R v Mailes.
The full text is available to signed-in members.