Taitt v The State: PC 8 Nov 2012

(Trinidad and Tobago) The defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction for murder, with the death penalty mandatory sentence. He was of severely low intelligence.
Held: The appeal against conviction would not be allowed. Settled law showed that he was not unable to assist and contribute to his defence. However the question of whether the execution of a person with such low intelligence amounted to cruel and unusual punishment, had not yet been settled in Carribbean jurisdictions, and had been doubted in the US. Leave would be given to appeal on this aspect.
[2012] UKPC 38
Bailii
Citing:
CitedRegina v Berry CACD 1978
Although a person was highly abnormal, it did not mean that he was incapable of doing those things set out in Pritchard as the requirements to be fit to be tried. Lord Lane CJ set aside a finding that the defendant was unfit to stand trial, saying: . .
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 . .
CitedRegina v Robertson CACD 1968
The evidence suggested that the defendant had a complete understanding of the legal proceedings in which he was involved but, also that, through mental illness, he had suffered delusions which may have effected his ability ‘properly’ to conduct his . .
CitedHamilton and Another v The Queen PC 16-Aug-2012
(Jamaica) The Board emphasised the need for the use of procedures designed to speed criminal appeals. . .
CitedBrown v The State PC 7-Feb-2012
(Trinidad and Tobago) The Board expressed its concern at the fact that reports as to the appellant’s ability to instruct counsel were produced ex post facto and without any explanation as to why medical evidence on the issue of fitness had not been . .
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 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 April 2021; Ref: scu.465694