The Criminal Code Review Board in charge of deciding on further freedoms for Calgary mass killer Matthew de Grood held its annual review. It was determined that since his last assessment, de Grood had not made sufficient progress in rehabilitation. De Grood was found not criminally responsible in 2016 for the deaths of five individuals at a house party in 2014.
During the hearing, the board learned about de Grood’s treatment, which included daily oral medication for his schizophrenia and a long-term injectable drug. The injectable drug had allowed him to manage his condition during unsupervised visits from his group home in Edmonton to southern Alberta, though he continued to use oral medication.
Dr. Oghogho Manuwa, the head of de Grood’s treatment team, acknowledged that these trips demonstrated a degree of independence but emphasized the need for more work in his rehabilitation. Crown lawyer Wendy Ekert raised concerns that de Grood had not accomplished enough rehabilitation since his last assessment and questioned his social interaction efforts, which were limited.
A social worker stated that de Grood had goals, including vocational and employment objectives, but his primary focus was to return to Calgary, which required his discharge from his closely monitored treatment team. His lawyer, Jacqueline Petrie, proposed the use of measures like Alberta’s Mental Health Act and community treatment orders for his reintegration into society. However, Dr. Manuwa expressed concerns about their adequacy, especially for an individual on oral medication.
De Grood was described as a level 3, or low risk to reoffend, but Dr. Manuwa highlighted the complexity of his case and the need for more information, given the seriousness of the multiple homicides.
To reintegrate into Calgary, Manuwa suggested that it would be pertinent for de Grood to live in the city for a period of time.
During the hearing’s conclusion, de Grood addressed the board and the victims’ families, expressing his desire to remain well and apologizing for any additional suffering his appeals may have caused. He requested consideration for an absolute discharge or a conditional discharge that would allow him to live with his parents back home.
The board will announce its decision at a later date.
