B, R v

A fitness-to-stand-trial issue must be determined by a jury under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Insanity Act 1964 only where a real question of fitness has arisen. A jury cannot find a defendant unfit in the absence of medical evidence supporting that conclusion. Where current reports from two consultant psychiatrists unanimously found the defendant fit, and the trial judge properly refused an adjournment for further evidence, no fitness issue arose for jury determination. An adjournment may be necessary where a defendant’s conduct raises a genuine fitness concern and medical advice is required.

The appellant faced counts of threats to kill, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and false imprisonment arising from an incident involving his former partner and another man. Two consultant psychiatrists examined him before the relevant hearing and reported that he was fit to plead and stand trial.

At the Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall on 4 June 2003, the judge refused a defence application for an adjournment to obtain a further medical report. The defence then submitted that a jury should be empanelled to determine fitness. The appeal challenged the refusal to adjourn and the refusal to empanel a jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The trial judge’s refusal to adjourn for a further psychiatric report could not be impugned. He had recent reports from two consultant psychiatrists, each concluding that the appellant was fit to plead and stand trial.

2. Under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure Insanity Act 1964, fitness must be determined as soon as the issue arises and is ordinarily determined by a jury. However, section 4(6) meant that a jury could only find a defendant unfit on medical evidence supporting that conclusion.

3. Once the judge properly refused an adjournment, the available medical evidence was wholly inconsistent with unfitness. No real question of fitness therefore arose for separate jury determination. The judge was accordingly entitled, and on the evidence could only properly decide, not to empanel a jury.

4. The court added that an adjournment for medical advice would be appropriate where a defendant’s behaviour in court itself gives rise to a genuine concern about fitness. That was not this case, because current specialist evidence was already available. The appellant’s later transfer to hospital did not affect the correctness of the Crown Court decision made in June 2003.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision not to adjourn for further medical evidence or empanel a jury on fitness.
• Crown Court at Middlesex Guildhall: On 4 June 2003, refused an adjournment for a further psychiatric report and declined to empanel a jury to determine fitness to plead and stand trial.