Orr, Regina v: CACD 7 Jul 2016

The court considered whether the trial court had correctly identified the test for fitness to plead.
Held: The appeal was allowed: ‘Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly found that the appellant had been fit to participate in his trial up to the point of cross examination and thereby implicitly determined that the appellant was no longer able to fully participate in his trial within the ‘Pritchard’ refined criteria. In these circumstances, the procedure to be adopted was clearly set out by section Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 4A . . this is a statutory mandatory requirement which cannot be avoided by the court’s general discretion to order proceedings otherwise, however beneficial to the defendant they may appear. It follows that, in this case, the jury should not have been allowed to return a verdict, other than a verdict of acquittal if they were not satisfied on the evidence already given in the trial that the appellant did the act charged against him.’

Macur LJ, Flaux J, Goldstone QC HHJ
[2016] EWCA Crim 889, [2016] WLR(D) 378, [2016] 4 WLR 132
Bailii, WLRD
Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 4A
England and Wales
CitedJohn M, Regina v CACD 14-Nov-2003
The trial judge had directed the jury, determining fitness to plead, with an extended formulation of the test, including the appellant’s ability to give evidence, if he wished, in his own defence. This facility had been described to mean that ‘the . .
CitedRex v Pritchard 21-Mar-1836
A person, deaf and dumb, was to be tried for a capital felony the Judge ordered a Jury to be impanneled, to try whether he was mute by the visitation of God, the jury found that he was so. The jury were then sworn to try whether he was able to . .
CitedSC v The United Kingdom ECHR 15-Jun-2004
Hudoc Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 6-1 ; Non-pecuniary damage – finding of violation sufficient ; Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) – claim rejected ; Costs and expenses . .
CitedWalls, Regina v CACD 3-Mar-2011
The court was asked whether, after the appellant had been tried and convicted at the Crown Court in Coventry on 26 November 2008 of offences of sexual assault on a child under 13, the court should admit under s.23 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.567376