Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The Law Commission Steel House 11 Tothill Street London SW1H 9LJ 26 th January 2010 To Whom It May Concern: Greater Manchester West Mental Health NHS Foundation Trust Edenfield Centre Prestwich Hospital Bury New Road Prestwich Manchester M25 3BL Tel: Fax: Below is the collective response from the Edenfield Centre, Adult Forensic Secure service, regarding the unfitness to plead consultation paper (No. 197). We have attempted to address all the questions which were put forward by the Law Commission and have added some additional comments at the end. Yours Sincerely Dr Hany El-Metaal Specialist Trainee 5 Forensic Psychiatry Edenfield Centre Dr Fareed Bashir Consultant Forensic Psychiatry Edenfield Centre
Page 1 and 2:
Unfitness to Plead Consultation Res
Page 3 and 4:
CONSULTEES, LISTED ALPHABETICALLY A
Page 5 and 6:
Sarkar, Sameer Searle, Geoff Sense
Page 7 and 8:
o The UN Committee on the Rights of
Page 9 and 10:
Rethinking the Criminal Responsibil
Page 11 and 12:
asic competencies of young people a
Page 13 and 14:
parliament to consider rather than
Page 15 and 16:
preventing crime. Graham and Bowlin
Page 17 and 18:
other areas of the law’ and this
Page 19 and 20:
absolute minimum age of criminal re
Page 21 and 22:
The views of the judiciary in the U
Page 23 and 24:
all children who are alleged to hav
Page 25 and 26:
39 Trevor Jones‘Public Opinion, P
Page 27 and 28:
Charity No 1137430 Company No 60065
Page 29 and 30:
Charity No 1137430 Company No 60065
Page 31 and 32:
From: Bickle Andrew Sent: 10 Januar
Page 33 and 34:
Comments on “Unfitness to Plead,
Page 35 and 36:
8. It would be very easy to insert
Page 37 and 38:
himself at trial. The Court did not
Page 39 and 40:
-----Original Message----- From: Br
Page 41 and 42:
Response The Society welcomes the o
Page 43 and 44:
for the task in hand. This would ap
Page 45 and 46:
1. Introduction “UNFITNESS TO PLE
Page 47 and 48:
On the other hand, the so-called co
Page 49 and 50:
The Law Commissioners, Steel House,
Page 51 and 52:
Law Commission consultation on unfi
Page 53 and 54:
could possibly mean that they take
Page 55 and 56:
whether present at the time of the
Page 57 and 58:
disposals. We consider that the ref
Page 59 and 60:
difficulties may or may not be fit
Page 61 and 62: profession to treatment, the civil
Page 63 and 64: of the decision the accused must ma
Page 65 and 66: 25. We consider that Provisional Pr
Page 67 and 68: Provisional Proposal 5: Decision-ma
Page 69 and 70: giving evidence, it is unlikely tha
Page 71 and 72: Provisional Proposal 7: A defined p
Page 73 and 74: 42. The difficulty lies in that the
Page 75 and 76: envisages that there could be an ac
Page 77 and 78: Reply 50. We consider we have alrea
Page 79 and 80: Question 6: Are there circumstances
Page 81 and 82: uilds upon the disposal of the case
Page 83 and 84: determination of jurisdiction as ap
Page 85 and 86: age” in which term we include the
Page 87 and 88: The assumption that has been made i
Page 89 and 90: which the court is satisfied that t
Page 91 and 92: The current section 4A procedure re
Page 93 and 94: The CPS then re-reviews the case in
Page 95 and 96: cases, there should be a single tri
Page 97 and 98: magistrates/District Judges, keepin
Page 99 and 100: Law Commission Consultation paper N
Page 101 and 102: From: Enys Delmage Sent: 16 March 2
Page 103 and 104: for meaningful participation in the
Page 105 and 106: (7) A defined psychiatric test to a
Page 107 and 108: (13) In the event of a referral bac
Page 109 and 110: [Paragraph 6.153] N/A (5) Should a
Page 111: [Paragraph 8.68] YES (12) How far i
Page 115 and 116: Question 2: Can consultees think of
Page 117 and 118: Question 4: If consultees do not ag
Page 119 and 120: Question 6: Are there circumstances
Page 121 and 122: Question 8: Do consultees think tha
Page 123 and 124: Question 10 If consultees think tha
Page 125 and 126: Question 12 How far if at all, does
Page 127 and 128: CONSULTATION RESPONSE TO THE LAW CO
Page 129 and 130: appropriate measure of recklessness
Page 131 and 132: case that a crime was committed. Su
Page 133 and 134: 7. It is objectionable for a rule o
Page 135 and 136: entirely possible now under the exi
Page 137 and 138: From: Don Grubin Sent: 06 January 2
Page 139 and 140: From: Karina Hepworth Sent: 04 Janu
Page 141 and 142: Provisional Proposal 2 It is accept
Page 143 and 144: Summary In terms of the proposed ca
Page 145 and 146: the jury’s eyes. Someone with a m
Page 147 and 148: from a decision such as this after
Page 149 and 150: We believe that the Grisso criteria
Page 151 and 152: theoretical, the reality of proceed
Page 153 and 154: Case Study JW is a 19 year old defe
Page 155 and 156: for the Court of Appeal in appropri
Page 157 and 158: is also a real discrepancy between
Page 159 and 160: purposes of s. 37 [see MHA 1983, s.
Page 161 and 162: 1 JUSTICES’ CLERKS’ SOCIETY Law
Page 163 and 164:
she might be required to make. Unde
Page 165 and 166:
where necessary to enhance the abil
Page 167 and 168:
and/or injustice of an adverse find
Page 169 and 170:
either adult or youth, has the capa
Page 171 and 172:
BACKGROUND Kids Company and Unfitne
Page 173 and 174:
Due to our expertise and experience
Page 175 and 176:
Both these statements understand th
Page 177 and 178:
Social Services was understandably
Page 179 and 180:
Accused found to have cognitive abi
Page 181 and 182:
INTRODUCTION KC welcomes the overal
Page 183 and 184:
Provisional Proposal 2: A new decis
Page 185 and 186:
Provisional Proposal 4: In determin
Page 187 and 188:
judiciary of “hidden disabilities
Page 189 and 190:
Provisional Proposal 6: Where a def
Page 191 and 192:
Provisional Proposal 7: A defined p
Page 193 and 194:
this issue in relation to the condu
Page 195 and 196:
Provisional Proposal 10: The furthe
Page 197 and 198:
Question 6: Are there circumstances
Page 199 and 200:
summary jurisdiction. We wholly agr
Page 201 and 202:
SECTION 2 KIDS COMPANY CASE STUDY P
Page 203 and 204:
their implementation and are there
Page 205 and 206:
some time, and largely due to paran
Page 207 and 208:
form, had not realised he had immig
Page 209 and 210:
young people, that Mr Z was potenti
Page 211 and 212:
APPENDIX III Mr Y [This case study
Page 213 and 214:
APPENDIX IV [This case study has be
Page 215 and 216:
3. The only independent support adv
Page 217 and 218:
Remand prisoners (prisoners awaitin
Page 219 and 220:
paranoid personality disorder. The
Page 221 and 222:
REFENCES Fox, Richard Corresponden
Page 223 and 224:
such insanity may have been or may
Page 225 and 226:
After the making of a section 37 or
Page 227 and 228:
Comment on paragraph 5.21 final sen
Page 229 and 230:
Introduction Opening remarks UNFITN
Page 231 and 232:
UNFITNESS TO PLEAD Response by the
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER N
Page 277 and 278:
Provisional Proposal 5: Decision-ma
Page 279 and 280:
Provisional Proposal 9: If the accu
Page 281 and 282:
Question 5: Should a jury be able t
Page 283 and 284:
years were guilty or not, and where
Page 285 and 286:
mental disorder existing at the tim
Page 287:
The CP alludes to the problem that
Page 295 and 296:
The test should be replaced but by
Page 297 and 298:
(14) In circumstances where a findi
Page 299 and 300:
[Paragraph 8.37] In principle it ou
Page 301 and 302:
LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION: UNFITN
Page 303 and 304:
The Law Commission Steel House 11 T
Page 305 and 306:
strongly that there needs to be a s
Page 307 and 308:
the trial process. An advocate can
Page 309 and 310:
indefinite restricted hospital orde
Page 311 and 312:
I am available for further discussi
Page 313 and 314:
NATIONAL BENCH CHAIRMEN’S FORUM N
Page 315 and 316:
National Bench Chairmen’s Forum T
Page 317 and 318:
Re 1.34 Provisional Proposal 5 The
Page 319 and 320:
We note the new provision of the 20
Page 323 and 324:
Law Commission Consultation No: 174
Page 325 and 326:
There was some surprise expressed t
Page 327 and 328:
insanity. Are you making a mistake
Page 329 and 330:
fresh evidence to suggest that at t
Page 331 and 332:
Well worth a read is Rogers et al
Page 333 and 334:
(like Erskine, H and many others) w
Page 335 and 336:
Law Dept, LSE 14 January 2011 Dear
Page 337 and 338:
approach would be an improvement on
Page 339 and 340:
9.2 (3) Yes 9.2 (4) Agree Option 5
Page 341 and 342:
PP2: A new decision-making capacity
Page 343 and 344:
deciding whether an accused is fit
Page 345 and 346:
Question 10: If consultees think th
Page 347 and 348:
New rules to decide who is fit to s
Page 349 and 350:
stand trial, on the basis of his in
Page 351 and 352:
FITNESS TO PLEAD AND STAND TRIAL On
Page 353 and 354:
Ann Briggs a midwife was shown the
Page 355 and 356:
her not sane. The jury returned a v
Page 357 and 358:
object - and to comprehend the deta
Page 359 and 360:
This training does not necessarily
Page 361 and 362:
Hence, in the medical model, being
Page 363 and 364:
If one were to use standardised tes
Page 365 and 366:
Your ref: Our ref: Date: 27 th Janu
Page 367 and 368:
need a significant degree of furthe
Page 369 and 370:
Royal College of Psychiatrists Cons
Page 371 and 372:
However the Mental Capacity Act in
Page 373 and 374:
under that Act. Further, if the Sec
Page 375 and 376:
additional procedures e.g. special
Page 377 and 378:
“I believe that the CP does not e
Page 379 and 380:
The problem is getting adequate and
Page 381 and 382:
adult modes of thinking does not em
Page 383 and 384:
Provisional Proposal - 3: The legal
Page 385 and 386:
Provisional Proposal - 6: Where a d
Page 387 and 388:
necessarily have the same status, n
Page 389 and 390:
therefore should be the last resort
Page 391 and 392:
Response to Consultation Paper on U
Page 393 and 394:
Page 395 and 396:
Page 397 and 398:
Page 399 and 400:
From: GEOFF SEARLE Sent: 06 January
Page 401 and 402:
Executive Summary - Sense is broadl
Page 403 and 404:
About Sense Sense is the leading na
Page 405 and 406:
Sense Response Provisional Proposal
Page 407 and 408:
Provisional Proposal 2 Sense agrees
Page 409 and 410:
purposes for example a deafblind pe
Page 411 and 412:
Question 12 - Decision making capac
Page 413 and 414:
2) I further agree that a scheme sh
Page 415 and 416:
1) I respectfully agree with Provis
Page 417 and 418:
COMMENTS ON UNFITNESS TO PLEAD CONS
Page 419 and 420:
Provisional Proposal 7: A defined p
Page 422 and 423:
MASTER VENNE REGISTRAR OF CRIMINAL
Page 424 and 425:
the 1968 Act. Ferris (referred to a
Page 426 and 427:
Law Commission consultation on prop
Page 428 and 429:
Provisional Proposal 1: The current
Page 430 and 431:
grasp this highly challenging conce
Page 432 and 433:
a further hearing on the issue of w
Page 434 and 435:
Question 6: Are there circumstances
Page 436 and 437:
2 fitness to plead assessment. This
Page 438 and 439:
4 supposition is correct, it will a
Page 440 and 441:
6 be required to make. Under this t
Page 442 and 443:
I agree. (2) Can consultees think o
Page 444 and 445:
10 Dr Eileen Vizard Selection of Re
show all

Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?