Blouet v Bath & Wansdyke Magistrates Court

Before deciding whether to conduct a fact-finding hearing or a trial in a criminal case involving possible mental disorder, the magistrates’ court must have up-to-date medical evidence. If a hospital order under section 37(3) of the Mental Health Act 1983 is a possibility, the court must first determine whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged. That fact-finding exercise is distinct from a trial. If the statutory conditions requiring further medical reports arise, the court must adjourn for those reports. Where section 37(3) cannot be available on the medical evidence, the case should proceed to trial, subject to any other compelling factor.

The claimant, who had Asperger’s syndrome and a history of mental health problems, faced a criminal charge. One psychiatric report found him unfit to plead; a later report considered him fit to plead and found no mental disorder requiring attention under the Mental Health Act 1983. The district judge adjourned for trial rather than a fact-finding hearing, relying on P [2007] EWHC 946. The claimant sought judicial review, arguing that the court should first determine whether he had done the act and then obtain further reports. The central issue was the correct procedure where a section 37(3) hospital order might be available.

1. Application refused. Permission for judicial review was refused because, once the correct procedure was identified, any application would be academic.
2. Section 11(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 requires an adjournment for medical examination and reporting where the court is satisfied that the accused did the act charged and considers an inquiry into his physical or mental condition necessary before determining how to deal with him. A trial and a finding that the accused did the act are not the same thing.
3. The procedure endorsed in R (on the application of Singh) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court [2007] 4 All ER 407 was adopted. The court must first obtain up-to-date medical evidence. If a section 37(3) order is a possibility, it must then determine whether the accused did the act or made the omission charged. That may be established by admissions or by hearing evidence. If the court is not satisfied, an unqualified acquittal follows.
4. If the medical evidence shows that a section 37(3) order cannot be made whatever the outcome, the case must proceed to trial, absent another compelling factor. If further reports become necessary after the fact-finding exercise, the case must be adjourned for them. The adjournment may be brief, or the matter may proceed under section 37(3) where appropriate and agreed.
5. The district judge’s suggested possibility of reverting from trial to fact-finding risked repeating the error identified in Barking. The proper procedure is set out by the legislation and explained in Singh. The case was to be listed before the district judge, and the court emphasised that up-to-date medical evidence must precede either fact-finding or trial.