In the view of the Canadian Police Association, having, as I told you, had discussions with Crown Attorneys working on these types of files, it is very rare to see an individual declared a dangerous offender after having committed just one offence. This is a very rare occurrence, even if the crime was a serious one. I do not have the statistics, but I can tell you that such cases do not even amount to 1%. It is even below that. The individual must by all accounts be a recognized psychopath and have perhaps killed ten persons at one and the same time, in a very sadistic fashion. Such cases are really exceptional.
There therefore must be a pattern, a series of crimes committed, confirming that the person always commits serious offences, as opposed to simply shooting at someone during a bank robbery, for example. And even the killing of someone during the course of a bank robbery can be considered a criminal act, but not a truly premeditated one. Therefore, it is really something very specific.
The other reason why the reversal of the onus of proof is important to us is the difficulty for a Crown Attorney to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused represents a danger. Those who practice the profession know that that means that there really is no escape. It becomes very difficult to really show that such is the case, even once the accused has gone through trial, has been declared guilty and has been sentenced.