Fluturim Hasani v Blackfriars Crown Court

Where an accused person initially found unfit to plead later becomes fit, the statutory procedures for determining whether the accused did the acts charged and for making a disposal order do not automatically continue. The court must hold a further fitness hearing under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. If the accused is then found fit, the sections 4A and 5 procedures become inapplicable and the criminal proceedings may continue in the ordinary way. The mandatory wording in sections 4A and 5 does not require an absurd or wasteful procedure after fitness has been restored. The second hearing remains necessary even where the outcome appears clear.

The claimant had been found unfit to plead under section 4 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. A jury subsequently found that he had done the acts charged. Before disposal under section 5, medical evidence indicated that he had become fit to plead and be tried. The Crown Court directed that he be arraigned, rather than proceeding directly to the section 4A and section 5 procedures.

The claimant sought judicial review of that direction, arguing that sections 4A and 5 required the court to continue with those procedures notwithstanding his restored fitness. The central issue was whether a further section 4 hearing could determine the proper procedural route.

1. The judicial review challenge succeeded in part. The order directing arraignment was quashed because the Crown Court had not first held a second section 4 fitness hearing.
2. Sections 4A and 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 are inapplicable if, following a further hearing under section 4, the court finds the accused fit to plead. That finding must comply with section 4(6), requiring written or oral evidence from two or more registered medical practitioners, at least one of whom is duly approved.
3. A second fitness hearing is compatible with section 4. It avoids the irrational consequences of requiring a jury to determine whether a fit accused did the acts charged, or requiring an absolute discharge after a serious offence has been proved when ordinary criminal proceedings can take place.
4. The construction gives the statutory provisions a sensible meaning and accords with the policy that a person unfit to plead should not face trial. The mandatory word “shall” in sections 4A(2) and 5(2) does not require those procedures to continue after fitness has been restored.
5. The case was remitted to the Crown Court, or another judge, for a second section 4 hearing. If the claimant was found fit, he was to be arraigned. If not, the original finding remained effective and the section 5 disposal procedures were to continue.

The judgment records the Crown Court’s direction that the claimant be arraigned. The Administrative Court quashed that direction only because no second section 4 hearing had been held, and remitted the case for that hearing.