P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

The State of Western Australia v. Stimpson - (08 Aug 2019)

When a judge decides that, an accused is not mentally fit to stand trial, it is then necessary to consider whether accused may become fit within six months

Criminal

In present matter, on 29 July, 2019, the accused appeared at a hearing to determine whether he was fit to be tried. Reports obtained by the Court concluded that, he had a serious mental illness, namely schizophrenia, and that treatment with a variety of medications had proven ineffective. The only remaining treatment option was Clozapine, a last-resort antipsychotic drug that can only be administered in a mental health hospital, but as at the date of the hearing, the accused was refusing to accept this medication. The accused stands charged that he wilfully and unlawfully damaged a house by fire.

In the present case, the accused was committed for trial to this court and an indictment has been presented which is dated 6th July, 2018. The question of whether an accused is not mentally fit to stand trial is to be decided by the court on the balance of probabilities.

Section 9 of the Criminal Law (Mentally Impaired Accused) Act, 1996 defines the circumstances in which an accused person is not mentally fit to stand trial. An accused is not mentally fit to stand trial for an offence if the accused, because of mental impairment, is - (a) unable to understand the nature of the charge; or (b) unable to understand the requirement to plead to the charge or the effect of a plea; or (c) unable to understand the purpose of a trial; or (d) unable to understand or exercise the right to challenge jurors; or (e) unable to follow the course of the trial; or (f) unable to understand the substantial effect of evidence presented by the prosecution in the trial; or (g) unable to properly defend the charge.

The term 'mental impairment' is defined in Section 8 to mean intellectual disability, mental illness, brain damage or senility. Section 19 of the Act sets out the procedure for proceedings in the Supreme Court and the District Court to determine fitness to be tried. Where a judge decides that an accused is not mentally fit to stand trial, it is then necessary to consider whether the accused may become fit within six months. If satisfied that the accused will not become mentally fit within six months, the judge must make an order quashing the indictment or, if there is no indictment, dismissing the charge and quashing the committal without deciding the guilt of the accused and either releasing the accused or making a custody order.

A custody order must not be made unless the alleged offence is punishable by imprisonment and the judge is satisfied that such an order is appropriate having regard to the considerations referred to in Section 19(5). Those considerations are: (1) the strength of the evidence against the accused; (2) the nature of the alleged offence and alleged circumstances of its commission; (3) the accused's character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition; (4) the public interest. If a custody order is made, the accused person must be detained in an authorised hospital, a declared place, a detention centre or a prison, as determined by the Mentally Impaired Accused Review Board. A mentally impaired accused person who is subject to a custody order cannot be detained in an authorised hospital unless the accused has a mental illness that is capable of being treated.

The evidence is clear that the accused suffers from a major mental illness. That illness has been resistant to treatment to date. It has deprived him of a number of the capacities necessary for him to be able to participate in a trial. In particular, he would not be able to follow the course of a trial, would not be able to properly instruct his lawyer and would not be able to defend himself. Therefore present Court is satisfied to the requisite standard that, Accused is not presently fit to be tried.

The accused has been in custody for a considerable time. The seriousness of the charge, the strength of the prosecution evidence, the fact that he remains seriously unwell, that community treatment options have been unsuccessful and that he likely to be a risk to the safety of members of the community, when taken together mean that a release order is not a likely outcome. The accused is not presently fit to be tried. The matter is adjourned for six months as it is possible that in that period he may become fit to be tried. The accused is remanded in custody; and a further fitness to be tried report is to be prepared for the next hearing.

Tags : MENTAL ILLNESS   TRIAL   ADJOURNMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved