The Court summarised its position that ‘Even if the loss of memory had been a genuine loss of memory, that did not of itself render the appellant insane so that he could not be tried on the indictment.’ The tests set out in Pritchard ‘may be said to be firmly embodied in our law’.
The onus lies on the defendant to demonstrate that he is unfit on the balance of probabilities.
Lord Parker CJ explained the meaning of ‘make a proper defence’ and ‘comprehend’ in the context in which Alderson B. was using them: ‘As to the word ‘comprehend’, we do not think that this word goes further in meaning than the word ‘understand’. In our judgment the direction . . is not intended to cover and does not cover a case where the prisoner can plead to the indictment and has the physical and mental capacity to know that he has the right of challenge and to understand the case as it proceeds.’
Judges:
Lord Parker CJ
Citations:
[1960] 1 QB 325, [1959] 3 All ER 418, (1959) 43 Cr App R 220
Criminal Practice
Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.465696