Whether the person does one point better on Mini-Mental status isn't really that helpful, because that's not really the end point that you care about.

Member States should be allowed to impose medical examinations as a guarantee of compliance with the minimum standards of physical and mental fitness for driving other motor vehicles.

12. Believes that a common minimum standard should provide for a degree of protection of procedural safeguards that adequately reflects the vulnerability of certain groups of persons who are at a particular disadvantage in terms of asserting their rights, owing for example to age, infirmity, physical or mental handicap or illiteracy, and that minors should at all events be included within these groups; considers attention should be drawn to their vulnerable situation by these persons themselves, law enforcement officials or the defence lawyer at the commencement of proceedings from the first time the defendant comes into contact with a ...[+++]law enforcement official, submitted to the judicial body for consideration and form the subject of monitoring within the criminal proceedings; considers that it should be the duty of all officials to draw attention to the vulnerability of such persons from the point of arrest and their initial questioning and that it should at any event automatically be taken into consideration as soon as it becomes apparent and, in particular, that appropriate medical assistance should be guaranteed for anyone who appears or declares themself to be in a precarious state of health and that specific safeguard instruments should be established for anyone appearing to be vulnerable owing to their mental or emotional state;

13. Believes that a minimum common standard should provide for a degree of protection of procedural safeguards that adequately reflects the vulnerability of certain groups of persons who are at a particular disadvantage in terms of asserting their rights, owing for example to age, infirmity, physical or mental handicap or illiteracy, and that minors should at all events be included within these groups; considers attention should be drawn to their vulnerable situation by these persons themselves, law enforcement officials or the defence lawyer at the commencement of proceedings from the first time the defendant comes into contact with a ...[+++]law enforcement official, submitted to the judicial body for consideration and form the subject of monitoring within the criminal proceedings; considers that it should be the duty of all officials to draw attention to the vulnerability of such persons from the point of arrest and their initial questioning and that it should at any event automatically be taken into consideration as soon as it becomes apparent and, in particular, that timely medical assistance should be guaranteed for anyone who appears or declares themself to be in a precarious state of health and that specific safeguard instruments should be established for anyone appearing to be vulnerable owing to their mental or emotional state;

If the intent is to have a salutary effect on the mental state of the victim without seriously interfering with the mental state of the accused, it may not be accomplished or may not be accomplishable in the review board setting (1205) Mr. Kevin Sorenson: There's also other evidence of individuals I'm not sure whether they're just criminals or whether they're those who are insane who have gone back after being accused, after getting out of prison, to the very same victims they committed the atrocious act on and harassing or trying to re-victimize them again, to commit the same thing.

Clause 7(1), in addition to making a stylistic change in the English version, amends s. 672.16 of the Code to ensure that only a court, and not a Review Board, can order that an accused be detained in custody under an assessment order in certain situations. Under s. 672.16(1), these situations are when: (a) custody is necessary to assess the accused, or custody is desirable according to the evidence of a medical practitioner and the accused consents; (b) custody is required due to another matter or provision in the Code; or (c) the prosecutor shows that custody is justified on a ground set out in s. 515(1) of the Code, such as to ensur ...[+++]e the accused’s attendance in court, to protect public safety, or to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.