Lederman, R v

A finding that an accused is unfit to plead requires the statutory medical evidence and application of the Pritchard criteria. Mental fragility and a risk of suicide do not themselves form part of those criteria.

Where an accused is fit to plead and no incapacity makes attendance impossible, absence from trial is voluntary. A represented trial may properly continue in the accused’s absence, provided it remains fair. A lack of recollection does not require dismissal of a dangerous-driving charge where there is sufficient evidence of deliberate driving and the issue is properly one for the jury.

The appellant was convicted in his absence at Blackfriars Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving after his car struck pedestrians, killing one and seriously injuring another. He had relied at trial on automatism arising from a medical episode.

Before trial, two defence psychiatric experts gave differing evidence about his fitness to plead. The trial judge held that he was fit to plead but medically unfit to attend, and allowed the represented trial to proceed without him. The judge had also refused an application to dismiss the charge based on the appellant’s lack of recollection.

The appellant appealed against conviction, contending that he was unfit to plead and should not have been tried in his absence. He also renewed his application for permission to appeal the refusal to dismiss the charge.

1. The appeal against conviction was dismissed, and permission to appeal on the renewed ground was refused.

2. The trial judge was correct to find the appellant fit to plead. Under section 4(6) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, a finding of unfitness required evidence to that effect from two or more registered medical practitioners, including one with relevant mental-disorder experience. The two experts had reached divergent conclusions, so that requirement was not met.

3. The Pritchard criteria were plainly met on the evidence the judge was entitled to prefer. The appellant could understand the charges and plea, challenge jurors, instruct his lawyers, follow the trial and give evidence if he chose. Suicidal ideation and mental fragility did not form part of that test.

4. Once fit to plead, the appellant was obliged to attend trial. His mental state did not make attendance impossible and was not such as to require certification under the Mental Health Act 1983. His absence was therefore voluntary. Since he was represented and his case was fully advanced through cross-examination, medical evidence and the material already before the jury, the trial judge was entitled to continue. There was no procedural unfairness or irregularity, and the conviction was safe.

5. The renewed ground was unarguable. The appellant’s admitted deliberate decision to drive into a wall provided ample evidence from which a jury could decide whether the dangerous-driving offence was proved. His asserted lack of recollection did not require dismissal of the charge.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): The appeal against conviction was dismissed in [2015] EWCA Crim 1308. The renewed application for permission to appeal the refusal to dismiss the charge was refused.

• Blackfriars Crown Court: The appellant was convicted in his absence on 10 December 2014 of causing death by dangerous driving. The trial judge had found him fit to plead, permitted the represented trial to continue in his absence, and refused an application to dismiss the charge.