Listen to this article
Estimated 2 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by text-to-speech, a technology based on artificial intelligence.
A Calgary man deemed not criminally responsible for stabbing five people to death at a house party is seeking more freedoms.
His treating psychiatrist, Dr. Sergio Santana, said Matthew de Grood remains a low level to reoffend and is ready for relaxed rules to make it easier for him to visit his sister in British Columbia.
The argument was made at an annual hearing before Alberta’s Criminal Code Review Board on de Grood’s progress and whether additional freedoms would be warranted.
“We can only recommend,” Santana told the board Wednesday, “but certainly last year we thought he was ready for more privileges.”
Santana said de Grood continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and the effect his actions had on his family and those of his victims.
“It’s not just the guilt, but it’s also the shame that comes with it. We know that bodes well,” Santana said. “People who feel guilt and shame and remorse … they want to change. That always bodes well for their recovery.”
De Grood’s team has been pressing for more freedoms.
Bid for more freedoms rejected in September
In September, Alberta’s Court of Appeal rejected the bid for a conditional discharge for de Grood or, at the very least, a relaxation of rules surrounding his supervision in group homes.
He was charged with murder in the 2014 deaths, but was found not criminally responsible as he was mentally ill at the time.
Court heard that in the early hours of April 15, 2014, during a party described as laid back and relaxed, de Grood went to the kitchen, grabbed a knife, then quickly and without provocation stabbed Zackariah Rathwell, Jordan Segura, Kaiti Perras, Josh Hunter and Lawrence Hong before fleeing.
He was 22 years old at that time.
The trial heard de Grood, suffering from schizophrenia at the time, believed he was attacking Medusas and werewolves for the son of God.
“The expert evidence was unanimous that the appellant had suffered a psychotic episode, had lost touch with reality and did not appreciate that his behaviour was morally wrong,” said the Appeal Court decision in September.
