Fitness to plead

Last updated March 29, 2024

In the law of England and Wales, fitness to plead is the capacity of a defendant in criminal proceedings to comprehend the course of those proceedings. The concept of fitness to plead also applies in Scots and Irish law.^[1] Its United States equivalent is competence to stand trial.

Test

If the issue of fitness to plead is raised, a judge is able to find a person unfit to plead. This is usually done based on information following a psychiatric evaluation.

In England and Wales the legal test of fitness to plead is based on the ruling of Alderson B. in R v Pritchard . The accused will be unfit to plead if they are unable:

to comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defence; or
to know that they might challenge any jurors to whom they may object; or
to comprehend the evidence; or
to give proper instructions to their legal representatives.^[2]

If the issue is raised by the prosecution, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is unfit to plead.^[3] If the issue is raised by the defence, it need only be proved on the balance of probabilities.^[4]

In Scotland the test is based on HMA v Wilson , and has two elements:

to be able to instruct counsel and
to understand and follow proceedings.^[5]

Procedure

The question of unfitness to plead is determined by a judge.^[6] The decision should normally be made as soon as it arises,^[7] which would ordinarily be before arraignment, but the court may postpone consideration of unfitness until any time before the opening of the defence case.^[7] This power might be used to allow the defence to challenge the prosecution case on the basis that there is no case to answer.

Under the earlier Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, determination of unfitness to plead led to an assumption that the accused had committed the act, without need for the prosecution to submit evidence, followed by automatic admission to hospital. In consequence fitness to plead was very rarely raised by defendants.^[8]

Since the 1991 Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act, if the judge determines that the defendant is unfit to plead, a "trial of the facts" is held in which evidence is heard and the jury asked to determine whether the defendant did the act or made the omission charged against them as the offence.^[9] This process avoids the detention of innocent persons in hospital merely because they are mentally unfit.^[10] It has been held that the reference to the "act or omission" means that the jury should not normally consider whether the defendant had the requisite mens rea.^[11]

If the jury find that the defendant is unfit to plead, the judge may:

make a guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;
make a supervision and treatment order within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991; or
make an order for his absolute discharge.^[12]

Criticism

An appraisal of the use of the legal test for fitness to plead in England found that 40% of psychiatric court reports did not mention fitness to plead at all, and that only a third made a statement about fitness to plead that was supported by reference to the legal criteria.^[13]

Research on the application of the legal test in Scotland shows that only 40% of psychiatric court reports made reference to the full legal criteria for fitness to plead.^[14]

Other jurisdictions address issues of a defendant's ability to meaningfully participate in the proceedings in a variety of ways. For example, in New York, if a defendant's capacity to understand the proceedings and participate in his or her defense is in question, the court will order that the defendant be examined by two independent medical professionals and conduct a hearing to consider the medical evidence, a procedure known as a "730 examination" as it is governed by Section 730 of the New York Criminal Procedure Law. Analogous procedures exist in other jurisdictions.

Related Research Articles

In jurisprudence, double jeopardy is a procedural defence that prevents an accused person from being tried again on the same charges following an acquittal or conviction and in rare cases prosecutorial and/or judge misconduct in the same jurisdiction. Double jeopardy is a common concept in criminal law - in civil law, a similar concept is that of res judicata. The double jeopardy protection in criminal prosecutions only bars an identical prosecution for the same offense, however, a different offense may be charged on identical evidence at a second trial. Res judicata protection is stronger - it precludes any causes of action or claims that arise from a previously litigated subject matter.

The insanity defense, also known as the mental disorder defense, is an affirmative defense by excuse in a criminal case, arguing that the defendant is not responsible for their actions due to a psychiatric disease at the time of the criminal act. This is contrasted with an excuse of provocation, in which the defendant is responsible, but the responsibility is lessened due to a temporary mental state. It is also contrasted with the justification of self defense or with the mitigation of imperfect self-defense. The insanity defense is also contrasted with a finding that a defendant cannot stand trial in a criminal case because a mental disease prevents them from effectively assisting counsel, from a civil finding in trusts and estates where a will is nullified because it was made when a mental disorder prevented a testator from recognizing the natural objects of their bounty, and from involuntary civil commitment to a mental institution, when anyone is found to be gravely disabled or to be a danger to themself or to others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">M'Naghten rules</span> Guideline governing legal pleas of insanity

The M'Naghten rule(s) (pronounced, and sometimes spelled, McNaughton) is a legal test defining the defence of insanity, first formulated by House of Lords in 1843. It is the established standard in UK criminal law, and versions have also been adopted in some US states (currently or formerly), and other jurisdictions, either as case law or by statute. Its original wording is a proposed jury instruction:

that every man is to be presumed to be sane, and ... that to establish a defence on the ground of insanity, it must be clearly proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was labouring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

In common law jurisdictions, a preliminary hearing, preliminary examination, preliminary inquiry, evidentiary hearing or probable cause hearing is a proceeding, after a criminal complaint has been filed by the prosecutor, to determine whether there is enough evidence to require a trial. At such a hearing, the defendant may be assisted by a lawyer.

A plea bargain is an agreement in criminal law proceedings, whereby the prosecutor provides a concession to the defendant in exchange for a plea of guilt or nolo contendere. This may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to a less serious charge, or to one of the several charges, in return for the dismissal of other charges; or it may mean that the defendant will plead guilty to the original criminal charge in return for a more lenient sentence.

Criminal procedure is the adjudication process of the criminal law. While criminal procedure differs dramatically by jurisdiction, the process generally begins with a formal criminal charge with the person on trial either being free on bail or incarcerated, and results in the conviction or acquittal of the defendant. Criminal procedure can be either in form of inquisitorial or adversarial criminal procedure.

An inquisitorial system is a legal system in which the court, or a part of the court, is actively involved in investigating the facts of the case. This is distinct from an adversarial system, in which the role of the court is primarily that of an impartial referee between the prosecution and the defense.

The presumption of innocence is a legal principle that every person accused of any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. Under the presumption of innocence, the legal burden of proof is thus on the prosecution, which must present compelling evidence to the trier of fact. If the prosecution does not prove the charges true, then the person is acquitted of the charges. The prosecution must in most cases prove that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If reasonable doubt remains, the accused must be acquitted. The opposite system is a presumption of guilt.

Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.

In law, a committal procedure is the process by which a defendant is charged with a serious offence under the criminal justice systems of all common law jurisdictions except the United States. The committal procedure replaces the earlier grand jury process.

In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal law of Canada</span>

The criminal law of Canada is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. The power to enact criminal law is derived from section 91(27) of the Constitution Act, 1867. Most criminal laws have been codified in the Criminal Code, as well as the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, Youth Criminal Justice Act and several other peripheral statutes.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Large portions of the act were repealed and replaced by the Sentencing Act 2020.

The Criminal Lunatics Act 1800 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain that required and established a set procedure for the indefinite detention of mentally ill offenders. It was passed through the House of Commons in direct reaction to the trial of James Hadfield, who attempted to assassinate King George III.

The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is concerned with criminal justice and concentrates upon legal protection and assistance to victims of crime, particularly domestic violence. It also expands the provision for trials without a jury, brings in new rules for trials for causing the death of a child or vulnerable adult, and permits bailiffs to use force to enter homes.

In the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, there is a long tradition of jury trial that has evolved over centuries. Under present-day practice, juries are generally summoned for criminal trials in the Crown Court where the offence is an indictable offence or an offence triable either way. All common law civil cases were tried by jury until the introduction of juryless trials in the new county courts in 1846, and thereafter the use of juries in civil cases steadily declined. Liability to be called upon for jury service is covered by the Juries Act 1974.

United States criminal procedure derives from several sources of law: the baseline protections of the United States Constitution; federal and state statutes; federal and state rules of criminal procedure ; and state and federal case law. Criminal procedures are distinct from civil procedures in the US.

Insanity in English law is a defence to criminal charges based on the idea that the defendant was unable to understand what he was doing, or, that he was unable to understand that what he was doing was wrong.

The Committee on Mentally Abnormal Offenders, widely referred to as the Butler Committee after its chairman Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, was set up in 1972 by the Government of the United Kingdom. The Committee submitted an Interim Report in 1974 and published a Final Report in October 1975, proposing major reforms to the law and to psychiatric services.

Under the law of England and Wales regarding insanity and unfitness to plead, once a court has determined that the defendant is subject to a disability that prevents their trial progressing, there may be a "trial of the facts" or "examination of facts hearing" in which the truth of the allegations against the defendant, as opposed to their guilt or innocence of a crime, is to be determined. The court's options are: to order an absolute discharge; a supervision order; or a hospital order.

References

↑ Haughey, Charles (6 November 1963). "Criminal Justice Bill, 1963— Second Stage". Houses of the Oireachtas: Dáil Éireann debates. pp. Vol. 205 No. 7 p.38 c.999. Retrieved 18 April 2013."During the period 1946 to 1962 ... 34 were found insane and unfit to plead"
↑ Prichard (1836) 7 C & P 303.
↑ Robertson [1968] 1 WLR 1767.
↑ Podola [1960] 1 QB 325.
↑ HM Advocate V Wilson [1942] J. C. 75
↑ Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s. 4 (as amended by the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, s. 22).
1 2 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s. 4.
↑ Exworthy, Tim (2006). "Commentary: UK Perspective on Competency to Stand Trial". J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 34 (4): 466–471. PMID 17185475.
↑ Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s. 4A.
↑ Hooper; Ormerod; Murphy; et al., eds. (2007). Blackstone's Criminal Practice (2008 ed.). Oxford. p. 1565. ISBN 978-0-19-922814-0.
↑ R v. Antoine [2000] UKHL 20 (30 March 2000)
↑ Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s. 5.
↑ Larkin, E., Collins, P. (1989). Fitness to plead and psychiatric reports. Medicine, science and law, 29, 26-32.
↑ Brewster, E., Willox, EG., Haut F. (2008). Assessing fitness to plead in Scotland's learning disabled. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 19:4,597-602