|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
insanity and unfitness to plead
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
A person may be deemed unfit to plead by reason of
insantity before or during trial. Before the trial, the
Secretary of State may have the accused remanded to a
hospital if it is in the public interest. As it is desirable to
have cases heard, rather than left undecided, such a person
will normally be expected to stand trial when he is well
enough to do so.
The question of whether the accused it fit to stand trial
should not be determined so early that a defendant who has a
strong case is denied a trial. Thus it is allowable for the
court to defer consideration until the close of the case
for the prosecution. This provides the accused and his
lawyers the opportunity to raise a plea of `no case to
answer'.
If either side, or the judge, decide that it is necessary
to determine whether the accused is fit to stand trial, the
matter must be decided by a jury. Normally a different
jury will hear the main case, if proceedings are continued.
A decision of unfitness to plead must be supported by two
doctors, one of whom is certified by the Secretary of State
as having particular expertise in this field.
If a jury decides that the accused is unfit to
stand trial at a late stage, and the court has decided that
the prosecution has made out a case to answer, the jury can
also make a
decision whether the evidence against the accused
establishes
that he committed the ActusReus of the offence
or not. If there is not sufficient evidence that he did,
the defendant can be discharged. This manouevre prevents an
innocent person be detained on the grounds of insanity if
the likelihood is that he did not commit the offence.
Otherwise the accused is either committed to hospital --
for a specified or unspecified time -- or discharged
subject to a treatment or supervision order.
The test for fitness to plead is whether the defendant
is able to understand the charges, and offer a defence, either in
person or through his legal representative.
Normally, a failure of memory of the
events surrounding the offence will not render the accused
unfit to be tried.
As with a defence of insantity, if the defendant submits
that he is unfit to plead, he has the burden of proof,
on balance of probablilities. This means that a defendant
can be convicted even if the dury is not satsfied beyond
reasonable doubt that he is fit to be tried. It can be
argued that the defendant's sanity is one of the elements
required to be established by the prosecution, along with
the existence of the MensRea and the committal
of the ActusReus. On such grounds it is hard to
see why the burden of proof falls on the defendant; with
Automatism the burden of proof remains with the
prosecution. This
situation appears to be an anomaly.
CriminalLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|