Fitness in the United Kingdom and the United States

• Author: Richard D. Schneider; Hy Bloom
• Pages: 185-194

185

cHapter 9

Fitness in the United Kingdom and

the United States

A. THE UNITED KINGDOM

1) Fitness to Plead

What is referred to as “tness to stand trial” in Canada or “competency

to stand trial” in the United States is, in England and Wales, known as

“tness to plead.” The current test has evolved from the common law

and is based principally on the case ofR v Pritchard, where the judge

directed the jury that tness to plead depended on:

whether [the defendant] is of sucient intellect to comprehend the

course of proceedings on the trial, so as to make a proper defense — to

know that he might challenge [any jurors] to whom he may object — and

to comprehend the details of the evidence . . . . If you think that there is

no certain mode of communicating the details of the trial to the pris-

oner, so that he can clearly understand them, and be able properly to

make his defence to the charge, you ought to nd that he is not of sane

mind. It is not enough that he may have a general capacity of com-

municating on ordinary matters.1

The test is an intellectual one that assesses the accused’s level of

comprehension and communication as well as their ability to instruct

counsel. In R v Berry, the court held that a high degree of (mental)

abnormality did not mean that the accused was incapable of following

a trial, giving evidence, instructing counsel, and so on.2

1 R v Pritchard (1836), 7 Car & P 303 at 304, 173 ER 135 [Pritchard].

2 R v Berry (1876), 1 QB 447.