16 May 2018

Mr. Charles O’Brien

650 Laurier Street, Suite 1905
Ottawa, Ontario

Re: R. v. Robin Roy

Dear Mr. O’Brien:

As per your request, I have evaluated Mr. Roy to provide an opinion regarding his risk for
violence, including sexual violence, for consideration at his sentencing hearing on 3 July 2018.
I understand that Mr. Roy has entered a guilty plea to five counts: break and enter and
commit theft (dwelling house), robbery, two counts of face masked with intent to commit
indictable offence, and sexual assault. My findings and opinions are set out herein.

I have forwarded my complete curriculum vitae under separate cover. A summary of my

qualifications appears in Attachment A.

The evaluation was based primarily on extensive case history information provided by you.
This information initially included: police, court, corrections, social services, and health
records, dated variously. I subsequently received copies from you of a pre-sentence report
prepared by Probation Officer Madison Steele, dated 28 April 2018, and a pre-sentence
psychological report prepared by Dr. Pamela Williams, dated 2 May 2018. I also conducted
an interview of Mr. Roy on 28 April 2018, which is summarized in Attachment B. The
information was sufficient in quality and quantity for me to reach findings and form opinions
with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Evaluation Procedures

Violence risk assessment is the process of evaluating people to characterize the risks that they
will commit violence in the future (e.g., the nature, severity, imminence, frequency, and
likelihood of future violence), as well as the steps that could be taken to minimize these risks.
There are two basic methods of conducting violence risk assessments. First, the discretionary
approach involves consideration of the totality of circumstances in the case at hand. This
approach may involve reference to professional guidelines. It is used in virtually all violence
risk assessments. Second, the non-discretionary approach, sometimes referred to as actuarial
risk assessment, involves consideration of a limited number of factors that are combined
according to a fixed and explicit algorithm. It creates a statistical profile of the person that
may be compared to known groups of recidivistic and non-recidivistic offenders. It is most
often used as an adjunct to discretionary approaches.

For the purpose of preparing this report, I conducted a comprehensive violence risk

Page 1 of 16
assessment using the professional guidelines outlined in the Risk for Sexual Violence Protocol,
or RSVP (Hart et al., 2003) and Version 3 of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management Guide or
HCR-20V3 (Douglas, Hart, Webster, & Belfrage, 2013). As part of the RSVP and HCR-20V3, I
considered the degree to which Mr. Roy exhibited symptoms of psychopathic personality
disorder, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, or PCL-R (Hare, 2003). Below, I
present general finding and opinions; details of findings and opinions specifically with respect
the RSVP, HCR-20V3, and PCL-R appear in Attachments C, D, and E, respectively.

Findings

For the purpose of forming opinions, I assumed the facts summarized below to be true.
Reaching findings was complicated by the fact that Mr. Roy was an unreliable historian.
Therefore, except as specified, the findings were corroborated by multiple sources of
information. I avoided sole reliance on his self-reports, except when they were contrary to his
self-interest.

1. Mr. Roy was born on 25 November 1975, and is currently 42 years old.

2. Mr. Roy had serious problems in childhood and adolescence. The problems included:

a. Family problems. He was adopted away at a young age. He was raised by adoptive
parents in a home environment that was, for the most part, pro-social and stable, but
according to his report he was subjected to harsh physical discipline that included
being slapped, punched, and hit with objects such as broomsticks. According to his
report, he felt closest to his grandmother and his relationship with his parents and
brother was strained; also according to his report, he threatened to kill his parents
and attempted to assault his brother with an axe. He had several placements outside
the family home, including for psychiatric care and correctional rehabilitation, starting
when he was about 13 years old. He was removed permanently from the family home
when he was 16 years old. In recent years, he has had limited contact with his family
and his relationship with them is still strained.

b. School problems. He was hyperactive and had learning problems. He did not get
along well with peers, was truant, and had behavioral problems. He was given special
school placements and was home schooled between ages 10 and 12. He stopped
attending regular school in Grade 9 or 10.

c. Conduct problems. He had contact with police from a young age, possibly as young
as 11 years old. He ran away often. He abused substances. He engaged in aggressive
behavior, including threatened, attempted, and actual physical harm of his parents,
his brother, and care providers. He had numerous charges and convictions as a youth
related to sexual violence (e.g., indecent exposure, sexual assault), non-sexual
violence (e.g., assault with a weapon); property crimes (e.g., theft, auto theft, break
and enter, possession of property obtained by crime, willful damage), and failure to

Page 2 of 16
 comply with conditions.

3. Mr. Roy had serious problems with personal relationships. He had limited contact with his
family and his relationship with them was strained. He associated primarily with antisocial
peers and had no stable, prosocial friendships. He had two long-term but unstable
intimate relationships. The first started when he was about 25 years old and lasted about
14 years. It resulted in the birth of a child. But the relationship was marred by substance
use and physical violence, which resulted in criminal charges and, according to his report,
a no contact order of some kind. His parental rights were terminated when his child was
about two years old. The second started about three years ago, but this also was marred
by substance use and violence, including charges (which he denied) that he assaulted her
with an imitation firearm and confined her against her will.

4. Mr. Roy had serious problems with substance use. With respect to alcohol, he drank
frequently and to excess (he reported at times on a daily basis), starting in his teenage
years and continuing to the time of his most recent offences. With respect to illicit drugs,
he was a heavy user of methamphetamine (crystal meth), which he reported that he
began using in his early teens and which he continued to use to the time of his most
recent offences. He also was a heavy user of crack cocaine and, to a lesser extent,
marijuana; and also occasionally used drugs such as acid and ecstasy. He has had only
brief or intermittent periods of sobriety. He has never participated in treatment for
substance use. His substance use has been associated with legal problems, including his
most recent offences.

5. Mr. Roy had serious problems with employment. He has failed to establish and maintain
stable employment. According to this report, he had multiple jobs, but all were short-
term and he has had periods of unemployment. He also supported himself by selling illicit
drugs.

6. Mr. Roy had serious problems with antisocial attitudes and antisocial conduct. According
to his self-report, he has had contact with police at least every 3 to 6 months since
adolescence. His antisocial behavior has been diverse, including (in addition to his current
offences) convictions related to theft, drug offenses, assault, possession of weapons,
sexual assault, dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, breaches or failure to comply with
conditions, and other miscellaneous offences such as trespassing at night and mischief.
He also was charged with unlawful confinement and assault of his current intimate
partner. He was unable or unwilling to provide details regarding most of his convictions
for violent behavior.

7. Mr. Roy had serious problems with respect to sexual attitudes and sexual conduct,
starting in adolescence and continuing into adulthood. These problems included:

a. He developed, in addition to normal sexual interests involving arousal to consenting

and conventional sexual relations with physically mature females, sexually deviant

Page 3 of 16
 interests that included voyeurism, exhibitionism, and urination. In the past, he also
reported that he was sexually aroused by fetish objects (e.g., women’s underwear)
and wearing a mask over his face but denied these interests at other times. His sexual
interest in urination developed into a full-fledged paraphilic disorder, specifically,
urophilia—sexual arousal to the smell or taste of urine or the sight and sound of
someone urinating. According to his self-report, he was frequently sexually aroused
by a wide range of sensory experiences associated with urine and urination.

b. He engaged in frequent behavior to gratify his sexually deviant appetite, including:

making obscene phone calls to his mother; keeping a photograph of his mother in
the nude; “peeping” at his grandmother while she was urinating in the bathroom and
through the windows of his neighbors; attempts to involve peers at a residential
placement in his sexual behaviors (e.g., by masturbating, urinating in front of others,
and spraying urine on peers); breaking and entering into residences in search of
sexually arousing objects; exposing himself to others; masturbating to stimuli
involving urination; drawing pictures and writing placards involving urination while
having sexual intercourse or so he could masturbate to them; and attempting to
psychologically or physically coerce others to engage in sexual acts with him (e.g.,
forcing women who visited him to purchase drugs to disrobe so he could see them
naked, breaking into the residence of women while masked and carrying a weapon
and attempting to convince them to urinate on him; sexual assault of elderly women).

c. His sexual behavior resulted in criminal charges and convictions on multiple

occasions, including: indecent exposure (e.g., masturbating in a public place in view
of two girls aged about 8 years old, masturbating in view of a female with whom he
was unacquainted while wearing a balaclava); indecent acts, sexual assault against an
elderly woman; and the offences for which he is currently awaiting sentencing. The
five index offenses occurred across three incidents:

i. On 12 December 2016, K.D. (18 years old) observed Mr. Roy outside her patio
door in the early morning. He was naked, wearing a red wig, and masturbating.
She ran into her bedroom, shut the door, and alerted her roommate (also 18
years old). Mr. Roy entered the suite and managed to open the bedroom door
slightly despite the girls pushing against it. Mr. Roy yelled words to the effect of,
“Let me pee in your mouth and then I’ll leave.” K.D. told Mr. Roy the police had
been called. He pushed on the door for another minute. He then picked up
K.D.’s laptop computer and a pair of her underwear from a pile of clothing on
the couch and left the apartment.

ii. At close to midnight on 28 February 2017, Mr. Roy approached two women,
N.F. and L.G. (both in their 30s), seated at a bus stop. He was wearing a
balaclava and had a knife taped to his chest. He stated words to the effect of, “I
just want you to pee on me” and “No one’s gonna get hurt.” N.F. pushed her

Page 4 of 16
 satchel towards him, and the strap was cut from her shoulder in the process. Mr.
Roy then left with the satchel.

iii. On 16 March 2017, Mr. Roy confronted N.V. (54 years old) in a women’s
washroom in Stanley Park. Except for his eyes, his face was covered with a white
nylon mask. He said that he would not take no for an answer and stated words
to the effect of, “I just want you to pee in my mouth.” N.V. screamed and swore
at Mr. Roy, and he began to flee. As N.V. moved toward the exit, Mr. Roy may
have unintentionally bumped her lightly.

d. He had some attitudes that support or condone his problematic sexual conduct, and
he greatly minimizes or denies personal responsibility for much of it (e.g., attributing
the cause of his behavior to drug use or a high sex drive).

8. Mr. Roy had some serious problems related to personality and social orientation.
According to a widely used scale of antisocial (psychopathic) personality disorder, his
symptoms can be characterized as “high” in severity relative to incarcerated adult male
offenders in Canada and the United States. His problems with personality included: lack
of remorse and empathy; shallow emotions and lack of attachment to others; poor insight
and a tendency to minimize and deny responsibility for his actions; impulsivity; and
irresponsibility.

9. Mr. Roy had serious problems with response to psychiatric and correctional treatment and
supervision. He had a series of placements at behavioral, psychiatric, and correctional
institutions during adolescence. Although there were a few positive comments about his
response in some placements, they were short-lived and his adjustment is best
characterized as highly problematic. He was prematurely discharged from or asked to
leave many placements, including a sexual offender treatment program, because of
misconduct that included problematic sexual behavior, threatened violence, and actual
violence. He failed to respond to or actively sabotaged efforts to engage him in
treatment. Starting in adolescence and continuing into adulthood, he violated the
conditions of community supervision on numerous occasions, including by committing
violence; indeed, he may never have completed a period of supervision successfully. In
the context of his most recent offences, he jumped out of a window in an attempt to
escape police.

10. He had serious problems related to plans for his future. He did not develop or implement
realistic plans to address any of his adjustment problems and his general coping skills are
poor. According to his self-report, his current plans for the future, if released into the
community, are to “get married,” “be loyal,” and “run a pizza shop.” He was unable to
provide any details about plans concerning where he would reside (aside from noting that
his girlfriend “wants a cabin”), how he would acquire gainful employment, or how he
would desist from using substances. He did not express any motivation or plans for

Page 5 of 16
 treatment—indeed, he did not even acknowledge a need for treatment—but said he
would participate in treatment for drug use and sexual offending “if necessary.”

Opinions

Below, I set out opinions based on the facts outlined above.

1. Mr. Roy has a history of violence, including sexual violence, that is chronic, diverse, and
escalating. This history included fear-inducing behaviour, threats, and attempted and
actual physical harm of others, such as prowling around or breaking into residences
knowing that victims were home, accosting victims while wearing a mask, accosting
victims while carrying weapons, threatening victims with weapons, attempting to coerce
victims into sexual contact, and physical assault. The victims were diverse with respect to
age, gender, and acquaintanceship. Much, but by no means all, of his violence had a
sexual motivation.

2. It appears that Mr. Roy’s decisions to engage in violence were motivated in some
instances by a desire to express anger or frustration stemming from his problems in
personal relationships, and in other instances by a desire for sexual gratification stemming
from his problems with sexual deviance (including paraphilic disorder). It also appears that
these decisions were disinhibited by antisocial attitudes, including those that would
support or condone violence and sexual violence; and both disinhibited and destabilized
by substance use and by problematic personality traits related to lack of insight, guilt, and
empathy.

3. If Mr. Roy commits violence in the future, there are two plausible scenarios.

a. The first scenario is a repeat of his past sexual violence. In this scenario—motivated
by sexually deviant fantasies; disinhibited by attitude, personality, and relationship
problems; and disinhibited and destabilized due to substance use—he approaches
strangers in public or in their residences and either engages in voyeuristic or
exhibitionistic behaviour or attempts to coerce them to engage in sexual acts with
him. Such behaviour would likely cause the victim moderate or even grave
psychological harm and could possibly escalate to moderate or even life threatening
physical harm, especially if he carries weapons or commits physical assaults in the
course of his violence. The risk of such a scenario appears to be both acute and
chronic in nature: acute because it could occur quickly (i.e., within days or weeks of
release to the community); and chronic because his sexual deviance, attitude,
personality, and substance use problems are long-standing and untreated. The
likelihood of physical harm would appear to be even higher if he continues to abuse
stimulants such as methamphetamine or cocaine, as opposed to alcohol or marijuana,
as stimulants appear to increase his sexual appetite.

b. The second scenario is a repeat of his past intimate partner violence. In this

Page 6 of 16
 scenario—motivated by the desire to express anger about problems in his intimate
relationship; disinhibited by attitude, personality, and relationship problems; and
disinhibited and destabilized due to substance use—he intimidates, threatens, or
physically restrains or assaults a current or former intimate partner. Such behaviour
would likely cause the victim moderate or even grave psychological harm and could
possibly escalate to moderate or even life threatening physical harm, especially if he
uses weapons or commits physical assaults in the course of his violence. The risk of
such a scenario appears to be both acute and chronic in nature: acute because it
could occur quickly (i.e., within days or weeks of release to the community), given
ongoing problems and alleged violence in his most recent intimate relationship; and
chronic because his attitude, personality, and substance use problems are long-
standing and untreated.

4. In summary, it is my opinion that Mr. Roy poses a high risk for future violence or sexual
violence. I considered the risk to be “high” because, given the pattern of his past
violence and its apparent causes:

a. With respect to nature, future violence may be diverse with respect to motivation
(sexual versus non-sexual) and acquaintanceship (intimates versus familiars versus
strangers).

b. With respect to seriousness, future violence or sexual violence could result in

moderate to grave psychological harm and moderate to life-threatening physical
harm.

c. With respect to imminence, future violence or sexual violence could occur in the
short-term but also could occur in the intermediate- or long-term.

d. With respect to likelihood, future violence or sexual violence is a strong possibility.

5. It is my opinion that it will be difficult to effectively mitigate Mr. Roy’s risk for violence in
the community. Specifically, effective mitigation is highly unlikely unless he is both willing
and able to participate in a comprehensive array of mental health, criminal justice, and
social service interventions. With this caveat in mind, I offer the following
recommendations for management of his violence risk:

e. Supervision: The Court may wish to consider imposing conditions to assist in

restricting Mr. Roy’s activities and movement. Such restrictions could include:

i. Prohibited from using intoxicants or from being in public while intoxicated.

ii. Prohibited from possessing knives except for cooking purposes and from
carrying any bladed object in public.

iii. Prohibited from wearing a mask or disguise on his face in public.

Page 7 of 16
 iv. Prohibited from being in public at night (say, after 6 pm or 7 pm) unless
escorted by someone approved by the person responsible for his supervision.

f. Monitoring: The Court may wish to consider imposing conditions to assist in the
monitoring of Mr. Roy’s risks. Such restrictions could include:

i. Attend assessment, as directed by the person responsible for his supervision, to

monitor his sexual deviance, attitude, personality, substance use, and
relationship problems.

ii. Participate in regular (at least weekly) meetings in person or via telephone, as
directed by the person responsible for his supervision, to monitor his sexual
deviance, attitude, personality, substance use, and relationship problems.

iii. Submit to electronic monitoring to ensure compliance with restrictions on

activity and movement.

g. Treatment: The Court may wish to consider recommending or even requiring that
Mr. Roy participate in treatment and rehabilitation activities. Such activities could
include:

iv. High-intensity sexual offender treatment programs offered by corrections or

forensic mental health agencies, as directed by the person responsible for his
supervision.

v. Cognitive-behavioural treatment programs designed to address attitude,

personality, and relationship problems offered by corrections or forensic mental
health agencies, as directed by the person responsible for his supervision.

vi. Substance use treatment programs, as directed by the person responsible for his
supervision.

vii. Programs intended to enhance his social adjustment, including those designed
to improve his opportunities for appropriate employment and housing, as
directed by the person responsible for his supervision.

Limitations

A violence risk assessment is only as good as the information on which it is based; also,
violence risk is dynamic. Please contact me if new and potentially relevant information comes
to light, and I can advise whether this would lead to any substantive change in my findings or
opinions.

All the opinions expressed herein are my own, and I hold them with a reasonable degree of
scientific or professional certainty.

Page 8 of 16
Thank you for the opportunity to assist in this matter. Please contact me if you have any
questions.

Sincerely,

Stephen D. Hart, Ph.D.

Attachments: A. Summary of Qualifications [Redacted for educational purposes]

B. Summary of Interview with Mr. Roy
C. Summary of Findings With Respect to the RSVP
D. Summary of Findings With Respect to the HCR-20V3
E. Summary of Findings With Respect to the PCL-R

Page 9 of 16
 Attachment B

Summary of Interview with Mr. Roy

I interviewed Mr. Roy at Pretrial Centre in Ottawa, Ontario on 10 May 2018. The interview
lasted from 1340 to 1615 hrs.

At the outset, I briefly explained the nature and purpose of the interview, including the fact
that it was voluntary and limited with respect to confidentiality. Mr. Roy stated he understood
this information and gave his consent to proceed.

During the interview, Mr. Roy was asked a number of questions concerning his social history,
his psychological adjustment, and the circumstances surrounding the offenses with which he
was charged. The questions were designed to clarify or expand on information contained in
the other documents I reviewed.

Mr. Roy was appropriate throughout the interview. He often gave direct answers to questions
but at times appeared to be evasive. When questioned about many aspects of his history of
sexual and other criminal behavior, Mr. Roy denied having perpetrated behavior that was well
documented in records or reported he had no memory of many such incidents. On multiple
occasions he provided information that was inconsistent with the information contained in his
records, especially with respect to his childrearing experiences.

Page 10 of 16
 Attachment C

Summary of Findings With Respect to the RSVP

The RSVP is a set of structured professional guidelines for assessing risk for sexual violence.
Evaluators use the guidelines to identify the presence and relevance of 22 basic risk factors
for sexual violence, based on interview and case history materials. The risk factors in the RSVP
are listed on the following page. I am familiar with the development and use of the RSVP: I
was one of its developers, and I have conducted research evaluating its usefulness and
trained professionals in its use.

With respect to presence, I rated 17 risk factors as definitely present (Risk Factors 1 to 6, 8, 9,
11, 14, and 16 to 22). I rated 3 risk factors as possibly or partially present (Risk Factors 7, 10,
and 12). I rated the remaining 2 risk factors as not present either in the past or recently (Risk
Factors 13 and 15).

With respect to relevance, I rated 9 factors as definitely having causal relevance with respect
to risk for future sexual violence (Risk Factors 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 20, 21, and 22) and 3 factors
as possibly or partially relevant (Risk Factors 7, 12, and 19). I also rated 2 factors as definitely
relevant to scenarios of future sexual violence (Risk Factors 1 and 2) and another 3 as possibly
or partially relevant (Risk Factors 3, 4, and 5). I rated the remaining 9 risk factors as neither
causally relevant to risk for future sexual violence nor relevant to scenarios of future sexual
violence.

I did not identify any additional risk-enhancing or risk-reducing factors.

As the RSVP is an aide mémoire or checklist designed to assist clinical evaluations, it cannot
be used to make quantitative estimates (i.e., probabilistic predictions) of risk for sexual
violence.

Page 11 of 16
 Risk Factors in the RSVP

1. Chronicity of Sexual Violence

2. Diversity of Sexual Violence
3. Escalation of Sexual Violence
4. Physical Coercion in Sexual Violence
5. Psychological Coercion in Sexual Violence
6. Extreme Minimization or Denial of Sexual Violence
7. Attitudes That Support or Condone Sexual Violence
8. Problems With Self-Awareness
9. Problems With Stress or Coping
10. Problems Resulting From Child Abuse
11. Sexual Deviance
12. Psychopathic Personality Disorder
13. Major Mental Illness
14. Problems With Substance Use
15. Violent or Suicidal Ideation
16. Problems With Intimate Relationships
17. Problems With Non-Intimate Relationships
18. Problems With Employment
19. Non-Sexual Criminality
20. Problems With Planning
21. Problems With Treatment
22. Problems With Supervision

Page 12 of 16
 Attachment D

Summary of Findings with Respect to the HCR-20V3

The HCR-20V3 is a set of structured professional guidelines for assessing risk for general
violence. Evaluators use the guidelines to identify the presence and relevance of 20 basic risk
factors for general violence reflecting characteristics of the perpetrator: 10 reflect historical
factors including criminal history and psychosocial adjustment, 5 reflect clinical factors
reflecting recent or current functioning, and 5 reflect risk management factors reflecting future
adjustment. The factors in the HCR-20V3 are listed on the following page. I am familiar with the
development and use of the HCR-20V3: I was one of its developers, I have conducted research
evaluating its usefulness, I have trained professionals in its use, and I have given expert
testimony about and based on it.

Ratings for Mr. Roy are based on my review of case history materials and my interview with
Mr. Roy, per the standard administration procedures for the HCR-20V3. The information
available was generally sufficient to rate test items.

With respect to presence ratings based on Mr. Roy’s history, I rated 7 Historical factors (H1
through H5, H7, and H10), 2 Clinical factors (C1 and C5), and all 5 Risk Management factors
(R1 to R5) as definitely present. I rated 2 Historical factors (H8, H9) as possibly or partially
present. I rated the remaining 4 risk factors as not present. In addition, I noted the presence
of Mr. Roy’s paraphilia as an additional consideration on the Historical scale.

As the HCR-20V3 is an aide mémoire or checklist designed to assist clinical evaluations, it

cannot be used to make quantitative estimates (i.e., probabilistic predictions) of risk for
general violence.

Page 13 of 16
 Risk Factors in the HCR-20V3

Historical Factors Clinical Factors Risk Management Factors

H1. Violence C1. Insight R1. Professional services

and plans

H2. Other antisocial C2. Violent ideation or R2. Living situation

behavior intent

H3. Relationships C3. Symptoms of a major R3. Personal support

mental disorder

H4. Employment C4. Instability R4. Treatment and

supervision response

H5. Substance use C5. Treatment or R5. Stress or coping

supervision response

H6. Major mental

disorder

H7. Personality disorder

H8. Traumatic
experiences

H9. Violent attitudes

H10. Treatment or
supervision response

Page 14 of 16
 Attachment E

Summary of Findings With Respect to the PCL-R

The PCL-R is an observer rating scale of psychopathic personality disorder. The evaluator
makes ratings on 20 individual items based on interview and case history information. A list of
the 20 items appears on the following page. I am familiar with the development and use of
the PCL-R: I assisted in its development, I have trained professionals in its use, I have
conducted research evaluating its usefulness, and I have given expert testimony about and
based on it.

I based my PCL-R ratings on the documents reviewed and my interview with Mr. Roy, per the
standard administration procedures for the test. The information available was generally
sufficient to score test items.

I gave Mr. Roy a high rating on 10 items (i.e., 2 on Items 6, 7, 11, 12, 14 to 16, and 18 to 20);
a moderate rating on 9 items (i.e., 1 on Items 1 to 5, 8 to 10, and 13); and a low rating on the
remaining 1 item (i.e., 0 on Item 17). I did not omit any items. In general, the ratings I gave to
Mr. Roy were above average on items reflecting the affective and behavioral symptoms, but
average on interpersonal symptoms. I also gave him high ratings on items reflecting antisocial
conduct.

Overall, I gave Mr. Roy a total score of 29 points out of a possible 40. There is a “margin of
error” when making PCL-R ratings, as is true for all psychological tests. The margin of error for
PCL-R total scores is + 3 points. This suggests that most evaluators who are appropriately
trained and reviewed similar information would make PCL-R ratings for Mr. Roy that result in
Total scores between 26 and 32.

According to the PCL-R manual, Total scores of 29 (and in the range of 26 to 32) are
considered “High” relative to incarcerated adult male correctional offenders in closed custody
facilities in Canada and the United States. Put another way, with respect to overall symptoms
of psychopathic personality disorder, a Total score of 29 falls in the top 20% of offenders
(range = top 33% to top 9%); put another way, 80% of offenders (range = 67% to 91%) are
less psychopathic than he is. A Total score of 29 is very close to (more specifically, just under)
the cutoff score traditionally used to diagnose psychopathy using the PCL-R, which is 30
points or higher out of 40.

Page 15 of 16
 Items in the PCL-R

1. Glibness/Superficial Charm
2. Grandiose Sense of Self-Worth
3. Need for Stimulation/Proneness to Boredom
4. Pathological Lying
5. Conning/Manipulative
6. Lack of Remorse or Guilt
7. Shallow Affect
8. Callous/Lack of Empathy
9. Parasitic Lifestyle
10. Poor Behavioral Controls
11. Promiscuous Sexual Behavior
12. Early Behavioral Problems
13. Lack of Realistic, Long-Term Goals
14. Impulsivity
15. Irresponsibility
16. Failure to Accept Responsibility for Own Actions
17. Many Short-Term Marital Relationships
18. Juvenile Delinquency
19. Revocation of Conditional Release
20. Criminal Versatility

Page 16 of 16