Wotton, R (on the application of) v Central Devon Magistrates' Court

A defendant who is medically unfit to stand trial should not be subjected to the criminal trial process. Legal representation does not by itself cure an inability to understand the allegations, give reliable instructions, participate in the trial, or make informed decisions about the case. Those requirements arise under the common law and are reinforced by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Where proceedings cannot fairly continue, the court may stay the prosecution. A stay may preserve a magistrates’ separate statutory power to order the retention or disposal of seized equipment connected with a statutory nuisance.

The claimant sought judicial review of the magistrates’ refusal to stay a prosecution for alleged breaches of noise abatement notices under sections 80(4) and 80(5) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Medical evidence indicated that, following a stroke, he had significant and deteriorating cognitive impairment, could not give reliable instructions, and was not fit to stand trial.

The magistrates considered that legal representation and other safeguards secured equality of arms and a fair trial. The issue before the Administrative Court was whether the proceedings should have been stayed and, if so, whether any separate statutory powers concerning seized equipment remained available.

1. The application for judicial review was granted. The uncontested medical evidence established that the claimant was not properly fit to stand trial. The magistrates therefore could not properly allow the criminal proceedings to continue.

2. The common law requires a defendant to be able to understand the alleged wrongdoing, understand any available defences, give proper instructions, participate in the proceedings, answer questions, suggest questions to lawyers, and make relevant representations after understanding the issues. Representation by qualified lawyers cannot compensate for an inability to participate fully. The reasoning in V v the United Kingdom [2000] 30 EHRR 121, paragraph 90, supported that conclusion under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

3. The prosecution was stayed. The stay was subject to the magistrates’ power under paragraph 5 of the Schedule to the Noise Act 1996 to consider the retention or disposal of seized equipment in a case involving a statutory nuisance within section 79(1)(g) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The matter was remitted to the magistrates for consideration of whether that power should be exercised.

4. Because the offence was not punishable by imprisonment, the procedures under section 11 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 were unavailable.

• Central Devon Magistrates’ Court: refused to stay the criminal proceedings, considering that legal representation and other safeguards ensured a fair trial.
• High Court (Administrative Court): granted judicial review, stayed the prosecution subject to the statutory equipment powers, and remitted the matter to the magistrates.