Crime CLVIII-Insanity XV
With
regards to the defendant’s fitness to plead, and with reference to s.4 of the
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (unfitness to plead - s.4 only applies
to those with disabilities) whether a defendant is fit to plead or otherwise is
determined on a balance of probabilities i.e. the test that is used is the
objective test or the reasonable man’s test.
In
R v M (John) (2003) the defendant was tried on various sexual offences
committed against a minor when she was aged between the ages of 8 – 10. The defendant
was her grandfather. According to medical reports the defendant suffered from
short term memory loss which was the result of excessive drinking over a
prolonged period. The trial judge set a threshold to determine if the defendant
was fit to plead, given his circumstance (if the defendant cannot understand
the charges against him than he is unfit to plead see R v Pritchard (1836) and
the verdict that is to be returned is not guilty by virtue of insanity 1831
(York assizes)). The jury found that the defendant was fit to plead or could
understand the charges against him and convicted. The defendant appealed.
The
appeal was dismissed. It was decided that the jury could find the defendant
unfit to plead if the defense could establish on a balance of probabilities
that the defendant was incapable of: -
1)
understanding the charges against him.
2)
deciding to plead guilty or otherwise
3)
exercising his right to challenge jurors
4)
instructing solicitors and counsel
5)
following the course of proceedings
6)
giving evidence
Otherwise
the defendant is fit to plead.
Copyright
© 2019 by Dyarne Ward
Comments
Post a Comment