07.08.2013 Views

Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Provisional Proposal 8: The present section 4A hearing should be replaced<br />

with a procedure whereby the prosecution is obliged <strong>to</strong> prove that the<br />

accused did the act or made the omission charged and that there are no<br />

grounds for an acquittal. (Paragraph 6.140)<br />

We agree with proposal 8 and the requirement <strong>to</strong> clarify the procedure around section<br />

4A hearings.<br />

In summary we understand the piecemeal manner at which section 4A hearing has<br />

somewhat evolved as a result of legislation and case law such as An<strong>to</strong>ine. Therefore<br />

instead of providing clarity this has muddied the waters of certainty, in addition <strong>to</strong> the<br />

debate surrounding exclusion of Art 6 in such circumstances. We understand the<br />

requirement for a distinction between section 4A hearing and a trial. The modus<br />

operandi of a section 4A hearing sits distinctly outside of the norms of criminal<br />

proceedings. It was constructed as a mechanism within which <strong>to</strong> provide a just system <strong>to</strong><br />

protect the accused, as well as the public. There has been a classification debate as <strong>to</strong><br />

whether section 4A hearings are criminal or civil proceedings. We agree with the CP and<br />

the view of Professors Mackay and Brookbanks,that in fact section 4A hearings are by<br />

virtue of their substance and form, a “hybrid procedure” 12<br />

However there have been inherent complications vastly due <strong>to</strong> the difficulty with certain<br />

offences in separating the fault element from the conduct element of the act or omission.<br />

The CP set out its reasoning in this regard with clarity. We agree with the CP in its<br />

identification of the current problems that the present system of section 4A hearings<br />

creates, namely: in consistent, arbitrary and incoherent decisions. In relation <strong>to</strong> new<br />

criminal offences the separation of the mental element from the external element is<br />

problematic when the external elements of an offence namely, the conduct and fault<br />

element can be virtually impossible <strong>to</strong> separate. We agree that as part of these reforms<br />

12 CP, (2010), p 120, para 6.25.<br />

23

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!