Unfitness to Plead Consultation Responses - Law Commission ...

deciding whether an accused is fit or unfit to plead, and help to ensure parity. PRT is
pleased to note the work of Dr Blackwood and his colleagues, as described in
section 5 of the consultation document, and look forward to hearing more about the
proposed test.
PP8: The present section 4A hearing should be replaced with a procedure whereby
the prosecution is obliged to prove that the accused did the act or made the omission
charged and that there are no grounds for an acquittal.
PRT agrees with PP8. In particular, we are pleased to note that in reforming the
present section 4A hearing to include all elements of the offence, the rights of the
accused would be protected under article 6 ECHR.
PP9: If the accused is acquitted provision should be made for a judge to hold a further
hearing to determine whether or not the acquittal is because of mental disorder
existing at the time of the offence.
PP10: The further hearing should be held at the discretion of the judge on the
application of any party or the representative of any party to the proceedings.
PP11: The special verdict should be determined by the jury on such evidence as has
been heard or on any further evidence as is called.
PRT’s understanding is that PP9 – PP11 would apply only if the accused is acquitted
because there is no evidence of fault (paragraphs 6.128 – 6.134, CP). While
appreciating that PP9 would provide the opportunity to consider an appropriate
disposal under the Mental Health Act – which may, for example, include much
needed treatment or protection for the individual accused, and society at large, by
means of a hospital order – PRT’s concern is that a so-called acquittal can result in
the discretionary re-opening of the hearing.
In principle, we understand why such a procedure might be necessary, and
appreciate the inherent complexities pertaining to such a procedure, but wonder if a
different framing of the outcome for an accused acquitted because there is no
evidence of fault, would be beneficial.
PP12: Where the Secretary of State has referred a case back to court pursuant to the
accused being detained under a hospital order with a section 41 restriction order and
it thereafter becomes clear beyond doubt (and medical evidence confirms) that the
accused is still unfit to plead, the court should be able to reverse the decision to remit
the case.
PP13:In the event of a referral back to court by the Secretary of State and where the
accused is found to be unfit to plead, there should not be any need to have a further
hearing on the issue of whether the accused did the act. This is subject to the proviso
that the court considers it to be in the interests of justice.
PP14: In circumstances where a finding under section 4A is quashed and there has
been no challenge to a finding in relation to section 4 (that the accused is under a
Jenny Talbot, Prison Reform Trust Page 4 3/25/2013