Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
In 1991, Canada introduced Bill C-30 to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder). Bill C-30 codified accumulated law specifying the criteria for fitness to stand trial. This test was clarified in a landmark case, , which appeared to accept the limited cognitive capacity test. This explanation has guided the assessment of fitness to stand trial in courts across Canada for three decades. It was recently tested in an Ontario Court of Appeal case, , which ruled that the common interpretation of was insufficient. The court ruled there is one test for fitness, which is contextual and nuanced, and this test is spelled out in the Criminal Code. This will likely change the test and manner for assessing fitness to stand trial in Canada from how it has evolved over the last three decades.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.240081-24 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!