Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

Response to the Consultation Paper from the Law Commission on
Unfitness to Plead
On behalf of the Legal Committee of the
Council of District Judges (Magistrates’ Courts)
City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court
70 Horseferry Road
London SW1P 2AX
1. Do consultees agree that we should aim to construct a scheme which
allows courts to operate a continuum whereby those accused who do not
have decision-making capacity will be subject to the section 4A hearing and
those defendants with decision-making capacity should be subject to a trial
with or without special measures depending on the level of assistance which
they need?
Yes, we consider this to be the right approach
2. Can consultees think of other changes to evidence or procedure which
would render participation in the trial process more effective for defendants
who have decision-making capacity but due to a mental disorder or other
impairment require additional assistance to participate?
We consider that if certain special measures available to witnesses
pursuant to the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 were
available to defendants in appropriate cases this could potentially
enhance the ability of such defendants to participate effectively in the
trial process. We note that Section 33A of the 1999 Act allows
defendants to give evidence via video link if the statutory grounds are
met and consider that examination through an intermediary (Section 29)
and the provision of appropriate aids to communication (Section 30)
could be utilized in the same way.
3. Do consultees agree that we have correctly identified the options for
reform in relation to the section 4A hearing? If not, what other options for
reform would consultees propose
We consider that the paper correctly identifies the options for reform
and do not propose any further options.
4. If consultees do not agree that option 5 is the best option for reform,
would they agree with any other option?
We agree that option 5 represents the best option for reform. However,
we raise the question as to whether there is a need for the further
hearing envisaged to establish whether any acquittal is on the basis of
1