P, a 16 year old boy with learning difficulties faced charges. A psychologist said his IQ was so low (52) that P would not be able to understand or reply rationally to the charges. The justices decided that he was fit to plead; they had formed a view of him from watching him during the proceedings so far, in which he had taken no active part. P sought judicial review.
Held: The procedure adopted was ‘entirely inappropriate’.
Wright J: ‘The procedure for dealing with matters of this kind in the magistrates court is specifically provided for by a combination of s.37(3) of the Mental Health 1983 when read in conjunction with the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 w.11(1). Under the 2000 Act s.11(1), if on the trial at a magistrates court of an offence punishable on summary conviction punishable with imprisonment, the court
(a) is satisfied the accused did the act or made the omission charged, but
(b) is of the opinion that an enquiry ought to be made into his physical or mental condition, before the method of dealing with him is determined, the court shall adjourn the case to enable a medical examination and report to be made, and shall remand him.
Under the Mental Health Act 1983 s.37(3), where a person is charged before a magistrates court with any act or omission as an offence, and the court would have power on convicting him of that offence to make a Hospital Order or Guardianship Order under (1) above, in his case as being a person suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment, then if the court is satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged, the court may if it thinks fit, make such an order without convicting him.
It will be seen that these two provisions provide a complete statutory framework for a determination by the magistrates’ court of all the issues that arise in cases of defendants who are or may be mentally ill or suffering from severe mental impairment in the context of offences that are triable summarily only. . . . It will be also be noted that the criteria for exercising the powers vested in the magistrates court under section 37(3) are considerably less strict and more flexible than the common law rules governing the issue of fitness to plead in the Crown Court. . . would have thought that the proper course is . . . to remit the matter to the Barking youth court to be reconsidered . . .in accordance with the machinery provided by the Mental Health Act 1983 and the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 — that is to say first to determine whether P did the acts alleged against him, and if so, whether the case is one for an order under section 37(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983.’
Judges:
Wright J
Citations:
[2002] EWHA Admin 734
Statutes:
Mental Health Act 1983 37(3), Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000
Cited by:
Cited – Crown Prosecution Service v P; Director of Public Prosecutions v P Admn 27-Apr-2007
The prosecutor appealed a grant of a stay of a prosecution of the 13 year old defendant as an abuse of process. Reports had indicated that he was unfit to plead. The prosecution contended that, if the court thought P ought not to face trial by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Criminal Practice
Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.251547
