Grant, R v

Where admissible medical evidence establishes that an appellant was unfit to plead at trial, the Court of Appeal may allow the appeal, quash the conviction and use its powers under Criminal Appeal Act 1968, section 6 to make the appropriate disposal. A supervision order may be suitable where continuing support and supervision are required.

Those advising a defendant must consider whether there is an issue of fitness to plead and bring it to the trial judge’s attention where necessary. An impairment may be substantial even if it is masked by the defendant’s outward appearance and demeanour.

The appellant was convicted at the Crown Court at Warwick of child abduction and received a three-year community order. He appealed against conviction after psychiatric evidence became available.

Two consultant forensic psychiatrists concluded that, because of significant learning disability and cognitive impairment, he had probably been unfit to plead and stand trial in April 2006. The issue was whether the court should allow the appeal and make a disposal under section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968.

1. Appeal allowed. The court accepted the written evidence of two appropriate medical practitioners. Their opinions established that the appellant had been unfit to plead when tried. The conviction was therefore quashed: see [2008] EWCA Crim 1870, paras [22], [28].
2. The court exercised its powers under section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The jury had found that the appellant did the act charged. In light of his unfitness, the appropriate statutory disposal was a supervision order rather than an ordinary criminal sentence.
3. A supervision order was made for two years from the date of judgment. Under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, the appellant was to be supervised by the appropriate probation officer, keep in touch as directed, notify any change of address, and reside with his parents.
4. The court stressed that legal advisers have a duty to consider fitness to plead and, where necessary, raise the issue with the judge. It made no criticism of trial counsel or the trial judge because the appellant’s serious limitations had been masked by his appearance, demeanour and family support.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction and made a two-year supervision order: [2008] EWCA Crim 1870.
• Crown Court at Warwick: The appellant was convicted of child abduction on 12 April 2006 and, on 11 August 2006, received a three-year community order.