R v Nyal Jordan Huskinson

Where a person subject to hospital and restriction orders is remitted for trial after the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person can properly be tried, the court must follow Criminal Procedure Rules 25.10. It must direct the defendant’s return and give further directions at a hearing in the defendant’s presence. It is improper to arrange matters so that the defendant is not produced, thereby avoiding the statutory consequence that the orders cease on arrival at court. Any continuing mental-health risk should be addressed through lawful powers under the Mental Health Act 1983. An appeal against the original hospital order cannot be used to challenge later procedural failures where the original order was justified. The proper course may be to restore the charges and remit the case for directions.

The applicant was found under a disability and unfit to plead after seriously attacking his father. A jury found that he had done the act charged, and Stafford Crown Court imposed a hospital order with a restriction order in August 2019.

In 2022 the Secretary of State decided that the applicant could properly be tried and remitted him for trial. The applicant was not produced at the subsequent hearings. In January 2023 the Crown decided not to proceed, and the charges were ordered to lie on the file. The hospital order consequently remained in force. The applicant sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against the original order. The central issues were whether the original order was arguably unlawful and what procedure should have been followed after remittal.

1. Scope of the proposed appeal. Section 16A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 permits an appeal against a hospital order with leave, and section 16B(1) provides the relevant appellate powers. Those provisions did not provide a basis for challenging the later failure to produce the applicant. The hospital order made in 2019 was not arguably erroneous in principle and was justified by the medical evidence. The extension of time and leave to appeal were therefore refused.
2. Effect of remittal. Under section 5A(4) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, where the Secretary of State is satisfied, after consultation with the responsible clinician, that a detained person can properly be tried, the person may be remitted for trial. On the person’s arrival at court, the hospital and restriction orders cease to have effect.
3. Required procedure. Following remittal, the court should have applied rule 25.10 of the Criminal Procedure Rules. Initial directions should have been given for the applicant’s return, followed by directions for the future conduct of the case at a hearing in his presence. It was not appropriate to contrive his non-attendance so that the statutory consequence of arrival at court did not occur.
4. Managing health concerns. If there were concerns about the applicant’s mental health on his return, lawful steps under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could have been taken in advance to prevent release where justified. The procedural safeguards could not be avoided by keeping the applicant absent.
5. Orders made. The Court restored the charges that had been ordered to lie on the file, lifted the stay, and remitted the matter to Stafford Crown Court. Initial directions were required within 28 days, including a direction for the applicant to attend a subsequent hearing. The Crown could then apply to offer no evidence, while the applicant’s representatives could make submissions on whether a trial should take place. The reasonable costs of the hearing were ordered to be paid from central funds.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): refused an extension of time and leave to appeal against the hospital order, but restored the charges and remitted the matter to Stafford Crown Court for directions.
• Stafford Crown Court: in August 2019 imposed a hospital order with a restriction order after the applicant was found under a disability and a jury found that he had done the act charged.
• Stafford Crown Court: following the Secretary of State’s 2022 remittal decision, hearings proceeded without the applicant being produced. In January 2023 the charges were ordered to lie on the file and the case was treated as concluded.