Singh, R (on the application of) v Stratford Magistrates Court

Insanity remains a common-law defence to a summary offence. If established, it prevents conviction, but it does not necessarily require an unqualified acquittal. Under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, magistrates may, in an appropriate case, refrain from convicting or acquitting and make a hospital or guardianship order, provided they are satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged.

The court has a judicial discretion whether to try the insanity issue. It must consider the interests of justice, including the accused’s interests, the medical evidence and whether a section 37(3) order may be appropriate. A decision to adjourn for further medical reports may be made under section 11 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000.

The claimant was charged in the magistrates’ court with assaulting a police officer. He admitted the factual acts and relied on insanity, supported by psychiatric evidence. The District Judge adjourned the proceedings to obtain further medical evidence, with a view to possible orders under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983, rather than immediately trying the insanity issue.

The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that he was entitled to a trial and, if insanity were established, an unqualified acquittal. The Crown also argued that insanity was unavailable as a defence in the magistrates’ court. The central questions concerned the availability of insanity, the scope of section 37(3), and whether the adjournment was lawful.

1. Jurisdiction. The ordinary rule is that interlocutory challenges to magistrates’ proceedings should await the final determination. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion because the proceedings had been stalled for over a year, the issues were ready for determination, there was no factual dispute, and the claimant sought a mandatory order requiring a trial. This should not encourage interlocutory applications.
2. Availability of insanity. Insanity is a common-law defence in the magistrates’ court. If established, it prevents conviction. Attorney General’s Reference No 3 of 1998 [2000] QB 401 and R v Antoine [2001] 1 AC 340 concern the fact-finding exercise after insanity or unfitness has been established in indictment proceedings. They do not remove the defence or govern its availability in summary proceedings.
3. Section 37(3). Section 37(3) is sufficiently flexible to deal with alleged insanity and apparent unfitness to stand trial. It permits magistrates, where medically justified and where the act or omission is proved, to make a hospital or guardianship order without conviction or acquittal. Such disposal is medical rather than penal.
4. Trial of insanity. There is no absolute entitlement to a trial of the insanity issue or to an unqualified acquittal if insanity is proved. The magistrates must first determine whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged. If that is not established, an unqualified acquittal must follow. If a section 37(3) order may be appropriate, the court must invite submissions and consider carefully whether resolving insanity serves the interests of justice. It may try the issue and record its conclusion without convicting or acquitting, but may also proceed without trying it where there is no useful purpose in doing so.
5. Application. The District Judge was entitled to seek further medical evidence under section 11 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. The application was premature because the possibility of a hospital or guardianship order had not been resolved and the question whether insanity should be tried had not been fully considered. The application was refused and the case remitted for further consideration.

This was an application for judicial review of an interlocutory decision by a District Judge in the magistrates’ court. The High Court refused the application and remitted the case for further consideration.