Forensic Issues relating to Mental Disorder
1. Fitness to Plead - This is laid within the Pritchard criteria (R v Pritchard 1836) and requires evidence from two doctors and is determined by a judge.
It includes the ability:-
- to comprehend the course of proceedings on the trial;
- to be able to challenge any jurors to whom he may object;
- to comprehend and give evidence;
- to instruct their legal representative
If an individual is unfit to plead, there is a "trial of facts." If the jury are unsatisfied that the defendant did the act, they must return a verdict of acquittal. If the defendant is found guilty 'on the facts,' then there are 4 options available to Court:
i. An absolute discharge
ii. A supervision order - places an individual under the care
iii. A hospital order, with or without restrictions
iv. The hearing can be postponed, until the individual is fit to plead (with the option of S.35,S.36,S.48 or S.38)
Mutism by malice or by visitation of God can often be explored. If it is found that the individual is mute ‘by malice’, then the case proceeds with a 'not guilty plea' entered on the individual’s behalf. If mute ‘by visitation of God,' (deaf and dumb), then the question of fitness to plead will arise with a view to disposal under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991. A magistrates court does not have the same powers, and can be dealt with by a s.37(3) of the Mental Health Act, where a trial of facts in undertaken and if found to have committed the offence, a hospital order is utilised.
2. Psychiatric Defences
i. Insanity - aka the "special verdict" - This was established following the case of Daniel Mc'Naughten who was found not guilty on the ground of insanity of murdering Sir Robert Peel's secretary in 1843. The grounds for insanity were met, since he was:
"labouring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing,or, if he did know it, that he did not know it was wrong."
This is an infrequently used psychiatric defence (c. 10-15 times a year).
The possible outcomes of the finding of an insanity verdict (through the Domestic, Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004):
- A hospital order S.37 +/- restriction order S.41
- A supervision order
- Absolute discharge
ii. Infanticide - Applying when a woman kills her child under the age of 12 months. This was established in 1922, prior to the partial defence of diminished responsibility. This enables a women charged with child killing whilst suffering from post natal depression or any other severe mental illness to escape conviction for murder.
At the time, "the balance of her mind was disturbed by reason of not having fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child or by reason of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth."
The Court has a wide range of disposals and imprisonment is rare.
iii. Diminished Responsibility - This was established through Section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, to mitigate sentences from life imprisonment for murder. The use of this defence: results of a charge of murder being accepted as a plea of guilty to manslaughter (sentencing is at the judge's discretion). The accused should suffer from an abnormality of mental functioning which arose from a recognised mental condition. This is a question that the jury must answer (on the balance of probabilities) based upon medical evidence.
The success of this defence would usually result in a restricted hospital order, but there are other disposal options including: imprisonment, probation or supervision orders.
iv. Automatism - Defence used when an individual claims that they lack mens rea (or basic intent) for their offence because the act was involuntary and beyond their control. 2 types:
a. insane - due to a 'defect of reason' and is subject to the McNaughten rules. Examples include epilepsy, narcolepsy and dissociative states.
b. sane - for example, hypoglycaemia, head injury or sleepwalking.