Issuu

https://ebookmass.com/product/fitness-to-pleadinternational-and-comparative-perspectives-ronnie-mackay/

Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you

Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...

Comparative international law Roberts

https://ebookmass.com/product/comparative-international-law-roberts/

ebookmass.com

Plural Policing, Security and the COVID Crisis: Comparative European Perspectives Monica Den Boer

https://ebookmass.com/product/plural-policing-security-and-the-covidcrisis-comparative-european-perspectives-monica-den-boer/

ebookmass.com

Landscape and Space: Comparative Perspectives from Chinese, Mesoamerican, Ancient Greek, and Roman Art Ja■ Elsner

https://ebookmass.com/product/landscape-and-space-comparativeperspectives-from-chinese-mesoamerican-ancient-greek-and-roman-artjas-elsner/ ebookmass.com

https://ebookmass.com/product/introduccion-a-la-linguistica-hispanicaspanish-edition-2nd-edition-ebook-pdf/

ebookmass.com

Samuel Beckett and the Politics of Aftermath James Mcnaughton

https://ebookmass.com/product/samuel-beckett-and-the-politics-ofaftermath-james-mcnaughton/

ebookmass.com

Oxford International English Student Activity Book 2 Sarah Snashall

https://ebookmass.com/product/oxford-international-english-studentactivity-book-2-sarah-snashall/

ebookmass.com

Fundamentals of Structural Analysis Solution Manual 5th edition Kenneth M. Leet

https://ebookmass.com/product/fundamentals-of-structural-analysissolution-manual-5th-edition-kenneth-m-leet/

ebookmass.com

Make Me (The Unitam Realm Series Book 5) Sunny Hart

https://ebookmass.com/product/make-me-the-unitam-realm-seriesbook-5-sunny-hart/

ebookmass.com

SPT-based probabilistic and deterministic assessment of seismic soil liquefaction triggering hazard K. Onder Cetin & Raymond B. Seed & Robert E. Kayen & Robb E.S. Moss & H. Tolga Bilge & Makbule Ilgac & Khaled Chowdhuryhttps://ebookmass.com/product/spt-based-probabilistic-anddeterministic-assessment-of-seismic-soil-liquefaction-triggeringhazard-k-onder-cetin-raymond-b-seed-robert-e-kayen-robb-e-s-moss-htolga-bilge-makbule-ilgac/ ebookmass.com

Beauty

https://ebookmass.com/product/beauty-rage-broken-crownsbook-1-natalie-bennett/

ebookmass.com

FITNESS TO PLEAD

OXFORD MONOGRAPHS ON CRIMINAL LAW AND JUSTICE

Series Editor

ANDREW ASHWORTH CBE QC

Emeritus Vinerian Professor of English Law, All Souls College, Oxford

This series aims to cover all aspects of criminal law and procedure including criminal evidence. The scope of this series is wide, encompassing both practical and theoretical works.

other titles in this series

Criminal Justice and Taxation

Peter Alldridge

In Search of Criminal Responsibility

Ideas, Interests, and Institutions

Nicola Lacey

Character in the Criminal Trial

Mike Redmayne

Preventive Justice

Andrew Ashworth and Lucia Zedner

Homicide and the Politics of Law Reform

Jeremy Horder

The Insecurity State

Vulnerable Autonomy and the Right to Security in the Criminal Law

Peter Ramsay

Manifest Madness

Mental Incapacity in the Criminal Law

Arlie Loughnan

The Ethics of Plea Bargaining

Richard L. Lippke

Punishment and Freedom

Alan Brudner

Prosecuting Domestic Violence

A Philosophical Analysis

Michelle Madden Dempsey

Abuse of Process and Judicial

Stays of Criminal Proceedings

Andrew L.-T. Choo

A Philosophy of Evidence Law

Justice in the Search for Truth

Hock Lai Ho

The Criminal Justice System and Healthcare

Edited by Charles A. Erin and Suzanne Ost

Rethinking Imprisonment

Richard Lippke

Killing in Self-Defence

Fiona Leverick

Delayed Prosecution for Childhood Sexual Abuse

Penney Lewis

Lying, Cheating, and Stealing

A Moral Theory of White Collar Crime

Stuart P. Green

Defining Crimes

The Special Part of Criminal Law

Edited by Anthony Duff and Stuart P. Green

Criminal Responsibility

Victor Tadros

Proportionate Sentencing

Exploring the Principles

Andrew von Hirsch and Andrew Ashworth

Appraising Strict Liability

Edited by Andrew Simester

Fitness to Plead

International and Comparative Perspectives

Edited by RONNIE MACKAY WARREN BROOKBANKS

Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © The several contributors 2018

The moral rights of the authors have been asserted

First Edition published in 2018

Impression: 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above

You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer

Crown copyright material is reproduced under Class Licence Number C01P0000148 with the permission of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland

Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available

Library of Congress Control Number: 2018930389

ISBN 978–0–19–878847–8

Printed and bound by CPI Group (UK) Ltd, Croydon, CR0 4YY

Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this work.

For Sally (M) and Glenys (B), whose love and support continues to keep us both fit for purpose.

Foreword

Should we be glad or sorry that so few people are found ‘unfit to plead’ in a criminal trial? We should certainly be surprised. In England, 7 per cent of people in contact with the criminal justice system have a learning disability; 25 per cent of people in prison have a learning disability; 25 per cent of women and 15 per cent of men in prison reported symptoms indicative of psychosis; and growing numbers of older people are sentenced to imprisonment, in part because of the growing number of prosecutions for historic sex offences.1 These add up to many thousands of people. Of course, not all people with a learning disability, or psychosis, or the mental frailties of old age are unfit to plead. But it is a fair bet that there are more than the roughly one hundred a year who are found unfit in England and Wales.

Before 1991, when the inevitable result of a finding that the defendant was unfit to plead was indefinite detention for treatment in hospital, reluctance to raise the issue was understandable. Even now, as Rudi Fortson points out from a practitioner’s perspective, raising the issue may set in motion a train of events that were not expected or desired. Some defendants may prefer to plead guilty to a lesser charge; others may adamantly deny involvement in the offence rather than raise a mental health issue; or a legal representative may make a tactical decision not to raise it because in his view it is not in the defendant’s best interests to do so. An acquittal is obviously preferable to a finding of unfitness, even now. When is counsel bound to follow his client’s instructions in the matter?

Quite apart from practical and ethical considerations of this kind, the issue raises profound questions of principle. On the one hand, how can it be fair, and consistent with our notions of dignity and autonomy, to subject a person to the criminal process who is not able to play a proper part in it? On the other hand, unless the matter can be dealt with by diverting an obviously unfit person from the criminal justice system, the public rightly expects that people accused of serious offences, especially of a violent or sexual nature, should be brought to trial and, if guilty, dealt with accordingly.

But what do we mean by being unfit? Should the test be limited to the ability to understand what is going on in a criminal trial—the well-known Pritchard test as explained by the trial judge in R v M (John)? Or should that be broadened to the test adopted by the European Court of Human Rights, of ability to participate effectively in the criminal process? And should the ability to participate effectively encompass not only understanding but also decision-making capacity? Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, in England, the test of capacity to make most decisions involves not only the ability to understand the information relevant to making the decision, and to retain it for long enough to do so, but also the ability to use or weigh that information in order to make a choice. This is not the same as saying that the

1 Prison Reform Trust, Bromley Briefings Prison Factfile, Autumn 2017, pp 30, 44, 26.

choice made must be a rational one: rather, that the person must be able to make it. Curiously, the distinction between the capacity to understand what is going on and the capacity to make the decisions necessary to effective participation is not always understood, as is illustrated by the discussion of Jersey law, which has adopted the broader approach. Another relevant distinction, drawn by the Law Commission for England and Wales, is between the capacity to take part in the trial and the capacity to enter a plea of guilty.

Another issue of principle is whether capacity should be judged against the standards of a normal criminal trial, conducted along the adversarial lines traditional in the Anglo-American legal world, or whether it should be judged on the assumption that every effort will be made during the trial to enable the defendant’s effective participation in it? Great strides have been made in England in recent years in adapting the trial process to meet the needs of vulnerable witnesses, in a conscious effort to afford them as much protection from the criminal law as everyone else has. But those efforts are only gradually being extended to vulnerable defendants. Yet it might be thought that the best solution to the problem would be to adapt the criminal process so far as possible to accommodate the needs of those with a limited ability to participate effectively. As Professor Dr van Kempen explains, in a civilian legal system such as that in the Netherlands, the inquisitorial process puts more of a burden on the judiciary and less of a burden on the accused and his lawyers. But under the influence of the European Convention on Human Rights (which is directly effective in Dutch law) that process is becoming more adversarial and placing more of a burden on the accused and his lawyers, thus raising a variety of questions about the ability of the accused to play an effective part in it.

In principle, adapting the trial process so that the accused can play as effective a part in it as possible is preferable to finding him unfit to plead and sending him off to a mental hospital for an indefinite period. It is wrong in principle for the State to deprive a person of his liberty because he is accused of having committed a criminal offence without it being determined whether or not he has in fact done so. It is not enough to say that he might have been compulsorily admitted to hospital anyway: in many cases he would not otherwise have been thought suitable for long-term mental hospital admission. It is his alleged criminality which makes him so. But it is unjust to subject him to that if he is not, in fact, a criminal. It is this thought that explains the requirement in English law to have a ‘trial of the facts’ where a person is found unfit to plead. But as the English chapters in this book make clear, this is not a complete solution. There are many offences in which the factual ingredients are inextricably bound up with the mental processes of the person accused.

There are yet further issues of principle if a person is found unfit and spends time in hospital (or indeed some other place of confinement) before recovering enough to be returned for trial. In what circumstances is it in the interests of justice to do this—or indeed to preserve the possibility of doing this, however remote, as has sometimes been done in international criminal tribunals where there is an understandable reluctance to abandon the possibility of bringing the perpetrator of crimes against humanity to justice no matter how incapacitated he may be.

This book brings together perspectives on these issues from England and Wales, Jersey, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, the United States of America, the Netherlands, Italy, and international criminal tribunals from Nuremburg to East Timor. The case histories from the international courts and tribunals are particularly fascinating as they are grouped by mental condition, enabling us to see how the various issues of practice and principle play out in the context of conditions ranging from dementia, Alzheimer’s, and amnesia, through psychosis and cancer, to post-traumatic stress disorder. What do we think of people who can understand the trial process, communicate with their lawyers and with the court, and make rational choices, but who genuinely have no memory of the events in question? Their lawyers are put in much the same position as a special advocate in a ‘closed material procedure’ who has to test the evidence without being able to take his client’s instruction on it.

These varied contributions examine the issues in depth and present a variety of solutions. Although the numbers of cases are small, they raise profound questions which can illuminate our thinking about the nature and purpose of our criminal justice systems generally. The authors and the editors are to be congratulated for doing so.

Brenda Hale Supreme Court of

the United Kingdom

General Editor’s Preface

This volume presents a truly international study of the foundations, the limitations, and the implications of the requirement of ‘fitness to plead’. It is widely accepted that the criminal trial should, in substance, amount to calling the defendant to account for her or his conduct as charged. This calling to account must take place according to the right to a fair trial, and one of the elements of a fair trial is the defendant’s ability to understand the criminal proceedings, to make decisions, and to instruct legal representatives. The precise test of competence to stand trial is one of the major issues discussed in the various chapters that follow, but it is certainly not the only issue relating to fitness to plead. A further question concerns the implications of finding that a particular defendant is unfit: is it clear that the court cannot proceed to conviction? What protection should there be for the defendant, who might not have done what has been charged? And what should happen if the mental condition that led to the finding of unfitness changes, with the result that the defendant might no longer lack the competence to stand trial? What protection should there be for the public, if it is found that the defendant acted as charged? Should detention in a mental hospital be inevitable, should it be indeterminate, or should an assessment of proportionality to the offence charged be used to set a limit to any compulsory detention? These and many other questions are analysed by an impressive array of authors. The editors are explicit about their interest in producing improvements to the law on fitness to plead, by exposing the problems and the benefits of the legal regimes of a wide range of national and international jurisdictions. Given the detailed analysis, the publication of this volume is likely to make an important contribution to the cause of law reform in relation to fairness and the criminal process.

Andrew Ashworth

Preface

The impetus for this book came from our collaboration over a number of years on matters relating to the criminal law, particularly defences. This resulted in an ever increasing joint interest in fitness to plead, which we both considered had been somewhat neglected in the legal literature. As a result, we thought it would be useful to submit a book proposal on the topic that adopted a comparative and international approach. This also led to us organizing an international conference on ‘Fitness to Stand Trial’ held at the Auckland University of Technology in New Zealand in October of 2017. This was a timely and constructive gathering which acted as a forerunner to the book’s publication.

The book proposal was accepted by Oxford University Press and we are grateful for the input of the referees, who considered our proposal, and to Professor Andrew Ashworth for his helpful comments on an earlier draft. We are also very grateful to all of the chapter contributors to this volume, who were outstanding in responding to queries and in delivering their chapters on schedule. Finally, we are indebted to Baroness Hale of Richmond, President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, for taking the time to write a splendid foreword to the book. In doing so, Lady Hale expresses surprise ‘that so few people are found “unfit to plead” in a criminal trial’. In addition, she closes her foreword with the remark that ‘Although the numbers of cases are small, they raise profound questions which can illuminate our thinking about the nature and purpose of our criminal justice systems generally’. In our view, this epitomizes the fundamental nature of unfitness to plead and the problems it presents. Certainly, as far as the law is concerned in many of the jurisdictions discussed in this volume, the unfit to plead are both rarely encountered in practice and are not adequately protected by the criminal process to which they are subjected. In consequence, it is our view that the numbers of those adjudged unfit to plead, together with the protections they are afforded by such a finding, will not be increased unless and until the current law in most jurisdictions is updated and modernized. It is our sincere hope that this book may help to stimulate debate about this complex area of the criminal process and that unfitness to plead may no longer be regarded as a rare finding that is best avoided.

Finally, this book’s dedication speaks for itself. Words cannot adequately convey the debt which we owe to our two dedicatees.

May 2018

List of Contributors

1. Introduction 1

Ronnie Mackay and Warren Brookbanks

2. The Development of Unfitness to Plead in English Law 11 Ronnie Mackay

3. Unfitness to Plead in England and Wales: A Practitioner’s View of a Plea in Evolution 33 Rudi Fortson

4. Reforming the Law of Unfitness to Plead in England and Wales: A Recent History 55 Miranda Bevan and David Ormerod

5. Unfitness for Trial in Scots Law 81 Gerry Maher

6. Unfit to Stand Trial: Canadian Law and Practice 105 Gerry Ferguson

7. The Development of Unfitness to Stand Trial in New Zealand 127 Warren Brookbanks

8. Fitness to Stand Trial under Australian Law 153 Ian Freckelton

9. Fitness for Criminal Adjudication: The Emerging Significance of Decisional Competence in the United States 175 Richard J Bonnie

10. Involuntary Competence in United States Criminal Law 207 Stephen J Morse

11. The Right to Fair Preliminary Investigation and Trial for Vulnerable Defendants: The Case of the Netherlands 231 PHPHMC van Kempen

12. Competency to Stand Trial in Italy 255 Alberto Cadoppi and Mattia Celva

Freckelton and Magda Karagiannakis

Ronnie Mackay and Warren Brookbanks

Table of Cases

AUSTRALIA

Agoston v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 116 162

Berg v DPP [2014] QCA 281; [2015] QCA 196 ...................................... 156

CL (a minor) v Lee [2010] VSC 517 ............................................... 171

Clarkson v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 70 ........................................ 159

DPP v Khoury [2014] NSWCA 15 ................................................ 162

Dupas v The Queen (2010) 2141 CLR 237 .......................................... 163

Eastman v DPP (ACT) (2003) 214 CLR 318 ........................................ 153

Eastman v The Queen [2000] HCA 29; (2000) 203 CLR 1 157, 159, 161

Egan, Hawkins and Burr v JG [2010] ACTSC 53 155

EK v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 199 162

Heapes v The Queen [2000] TASSC 77 155

Heffernan v The Queen (2005) 194 FLR 370 159

Kesavarajah v The Queen [1994] HCA 41; (1994) 181 CLR 230 155, 156, 159, 160

LN, Re [2000] VSC 159 164

Lunt v Police [2013] SASC 25 ................................................... 153

Major Reviews of Percy, Farrell and RJO, In the Matter of [1998] VSC 70 ................... 165

McDonald v The Queen [2016] VSCA 304 ......................................... 163

Ngatayi v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 1...................................... 155–7, 160

NOM v DPP [2012] VSCA 198 .............................................. 165, 166

Parker v The Queen (1963) 111 CLR 610 ........................................... 163

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Yau Hang Chan [2015] NSWSC 1177 156

R v Abdulla [2005] SASC 399 155, 156

R v Aleer [2016] ACTSC 75 163

R v Ardler [2004] ACTCA 4; (2004) 144 A Crim R 552

R v Azar [2016] NSWSC 480

R v Blackman [2016] NSWSC 1579

R v Bradley (No 2) (1986) 85 FLR 111 .............................................

R v Bridge [2005] NSWCCA 122 .................................................

R v Crnobrnja [2016] NSWSC 1034 ..............................................

R v Dennison, unreported, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal, 3 March 1998 ........ 157

R v Draoui [2015] SASCFC 50. .

R v Dunne [2001] WASC 263 ...................................................

R v Enright [1990] 1 Qd R 563

R v Feili [2013] NSWSC 492

R v Gillard [2006] SASC 46 157, 158

R v Grant [1975] WAR 163 156

R v Haines [2013] NSWSC 1609 156

R v Hayles [2017] SASC 182 156, 158

R v House [1986] 2 Qd R 415 157

R v Khallouf [1981] VR 360 ................................................. 159, 162

R v Krbavac [2013] NSWSC 313 ................................................. 156

R v Langley [2008] VSCA 81 ....................................................

R v Larizza [2004] SASC 360 ....................................................

R v Lee [2014] QCA 36 ........................................................

R v M [2002] QCA 464 ........................................................

R v Mailes (2001) 53 NSWLR 251 ................................................

R v Mathews [2013] QCA 203 ...................................................

R v McKellar [2012] NSWSC 1567 ...............................................

R v McKitterick (2004) 36 SR (WA) 115 ...........................................

R v Miller (No 2) [2000] SASC 463

R v NCT [2009] VSCA 240

R v Ngatayi (1980) 147 CLR 1

R v P (1991) 105 FLR 12

R v Peterson [2013] NSWSC 1002

R v Polanski [1999] NSWSC 433

R v Presser [1958] VR 45 8, 141, 154–6, 159, 173, 304

R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284 ............................................

R v Steurer [2009] ACTSC 150 .............................................. 159, 162

R v Stevens (2010) 107 SASR 456.

R v T (2000) 109 A Crim R 559 ..................................................

R v Taylor [2014] SASCFC 112 ..................................................

v Thomas [2014] NSWSC 1181 ................................................

v Wahlstedt (2003) 231 LSJS 140

v Whittall [2016] NSWSC 691

v Willie (1885) 7 QLJ (NC) 108

[2015] NSWSC 1538

v Zvonaric [2001] NSWCCA 505

v DPP [1999] 2 VR 270

Sinclair v The Queen (1946) 73 CLR 316

Re [2009] VSC 363.

v Tekle [2017] WASC 170 ..............................

of Western Australia v Tekle (No 2) [2017] WASC 351 ............................

v The Queen (2004) 79 ALJR 116

(2000) 109 A Crim R 559 ..................................................

v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 209

CANADA

R v Balliram (2003) 173 CCC (3d) 547 (Ont SCJ) 563

R v Brigham (1992) 79 CCC (3d) 365 (QCCA)

R v Budic (1977) 35 CCC (2d) 272 (Alta CA)

R v Conception 2014 SCC 60; [2014] 3 SCR 82

R v Conway 2010 SCC 22; [2010] 1 SCR

R v Demers 2004 SCC 46; [2004] 2 SCR 489

R v Gibbons (1946) 86 CCC 20 (Ont CA)

R v Gorecki (1976) 14 OR (2d) 212 (CA)

R v Hubach [1966] 4 CCC 114 (Alta CA)

R v Hughes (1978) 43 CCC (2d) 97 (Alta SC) .......................................

R v Hussein (2004) 191 CCC (3d) 113 (ONSC) .....................................

R v Jaser 2015 ONSC 4729 .....................................................

R v Jobb (2008) 239 CCC (3d) 24 (Sask CA) ........................................

R v Kierstead (1918) 33 CCC 288 (NBKB) .........................................

R v Le (2004) 187 CCC (3d) 283 .................................................

R v Leys (1910) 17 CCC 198 (Ont CA)

R v Lowry [1974] SCR 195 (SCC)

R v M (RC) 2011 SKPC 61

R v Morrison 2016 SKQB 259

R v Morrissey (2007) 227 CCC (3d) 1 (Ont CA) .....................................

R v Proulx (2011) 273 CCC (3d) 367 (Sask PC) ......................................

R v Roberts (1975) 24 CCC (2d) 539 (BCCA) .......................................

R v Sabourin (2009) File No 03- G30181 (Ont SCJ).

R v Sewap (2008) 341 Sask R 31 (PC)..............................................

R v Smith (1936) 65 CCC 231 (Sask CA) ...........................................

R v Steele (1991) 63 CCC (3d) 149 (QCCA)

R v Ta [2002] OJ No 1453 (CA)

R v Taylor (1992) 77 CCC (3d) 551 (Ont CA)

R v Whittle [1994] 2 SCR 914 (SCC)

R v Woltucky (1952) 103 CCC 43 (Sask CA)

R v Xu [2007] OJ No 5796 (Ont CJ)

ITALY

C Cost 25 May 1979, 23

C Cost 20 July 1992, 340

C Cost 28 June 1995, 281

C Cost 22 October 1996, 354

C Cost 26 January 2004, 39 .....................................................

C Cost 14 February 2013, 23 ..................................................

C Cost 25 March 2015, 45 ....................................................

C Cost (ord) 23 May 1991, 298 ..................................................

C Cost (ord) 4 February 2003, 33 .................................................

C Cost (ord) 28 May 2004, 157 ..................................................

C Cost (ord) 29 March 2007, 112

C Cost (ord) 4 November 2011, 289

C Cost (ord) 21 October 2013, 243

Cass (1) 29 April 1993

Cass (1) 19 February 2004, 9676

Cass (4) 17 May 2005, 28559

Cass (1) 9 March 2007, 22749

Giud Pace Gaeta (ord) 17 March 2014 .............................................

Trib Milano (1) (ord) 21 March 2013 ..............................................

JERSEY

A-G v O’Driscoll, 2003 JLR 390

R v Harding [2010] JLR 239; [2009] JRC198 ......................................

NETHERLANDS

Supreme Court 5 February 1980, ECLI:NL:HR:1980:AB7357, NJ 1980/104 (Menten Case)

Supreme Court 12 June 2001, ECLI:NL:HR:2001:AB2064, NJ 2001/696.

Supreme Court 11 April 2006, ECLI:NL:HR:2006:AU9130, NJ 2006/393 ................. 234 Supreme Court 17 November 2009, ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BI2315, NJ 2010/143 ..... 236, 247, 248 Supreme Court 20 November 2011, ECLI:NL:HR:2011:BT6406, NJ 2012/29 .............. 240 Supreme Court 6 March 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BU3614, NJ 2012/610 ................. 234

Supreme Court 16 November 2012, ECLI:NL:HR:2012:BX4280, NJ 2013/109 ............. 242 Supreme Court 19 February 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BY5321, NJ 2013/308 233

Table of Cases

Supreme Court 12 March 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:BZ3886, NJ 2013/179 ................ 233

Supreme Court 2 July 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:7, NJ 2013/563 ........................ 242

Supreme Court 17 September 2013, ECLI:NL:HR:2013:708, NJ 2014/288 ................ 236

Supreme Court 1 July 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:1496, NJ 2014/441 ..................... 233

Supreme Court 18 November 2014, ECLI:NL:HR:2014:3288, NJ 2015/49 236, 252

Supreme Court 3 February 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:194, NJ 2015/134 236

Supreme Court 10 February 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:268, NJ 2015/137 236

Supreme Court 26 May 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:1340, NJ 2015/299 233

Supreme Court 8 September 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2476 233

Supreme Court 15 December 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3580, NJ 2016/454 250

Supreme Court 22 December 2015, ECLI:NL:HR:2015:3608, NJ 2016/52 234, 249

Supreme Court 7 June 2016, ECLI:NL:HR:2016:1005, NJ 2016/430 ..................... 233

NEW ZEALAND

Barton v Police DC Palmerston North CRI 2008-054-003750, 14 November 2011 135, 141

Britz v R [2012] NZCA 606 129

D-G, Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water v Source & Resources Pty Ltd [2011] NSWLEC 87, 23 May 2011 ...........................

v R [2010] NZCA 2 ....................................................

Jones v R CA 293/2014 [2015] NZCA 601 .........................................

Latimer v Police HC Auckland CRI 2011-404-000015, 21 June 2011 .....................

Lawler v The Queen CA 777/2010 [2013] NZCA 308 ............................. 147, 149

Leapai v Police HC Auckland CRI 2011-404-301, 17 April 2012 149

N v The Queen CA 610/2015 [2017] NZCA 170 145, 146

P v Police [2007] 2 NZLR 528 130, 141, 142, 144

Police v Espanto DC North Shore CRI 2008-044-009415, 1 May 2009 138

Police v KP DC Auckland CRN 09004027463, 21 July 2010

Police v M [1993] DCR 1119

Police v Palu HC Auckland CRI 2008-404-0083, 8 June 2009

Police v TS DC Manukau CRI 2009-292-593, 20 September 2010 135

Port v R [2012] NZCA 429 ................................................. 141, 145

R v AA [2010] QCA 305 (5 November 2010) ........................................ 149

R v Ardler [2004] ACTCA (30 March 2004) ........................................ 139

R v Bailey [2011] NSWSC 1228, 11 October 2011 ................................... 134

R v BMS (young person) DC Whangarei, 29 September 2010 ...........................

R v Cann DC Whangarei CRI 2009-024-001269, 14 April 2011 138

R v Codd [2006] 3 NZLR 562 136

R v Cumming HC Christchurch CRI 2001-009-835552, 15 June 2009 140, 145, 146

R v Cunningham HC Gisborne CRI 2011-016-000048, 10 November 2011 133, 134

R v Harvey HC Auckland CRI 2011-044-6714, 30 May 2012 141

R v Hemopo [2014] NZHC 1423 130

R v Jeffries CA 728/2010 [2012] NZCA 608 131

R v Kimura CA 15/2011 [2011] NZCA 238 136, 137

R v Komene [2013] NZHC 1347 ..................................... 129, 130, 134, 138

R v L [1998] 2 NZLR 141 ...................................................... 148

R v Latimer HC Auckland CRI 2011-404-000015, 21 June 2011 ......................... 136

R v Lyttleton HC Auckland CRI 2008-044-009466, 4 November 2009 ................. 138–40

R v McKay [2009] NZCA 378; [2010] 1 NZLR 441 ........................ 130, 136–8, 142

R v Moore HC, Palmerston North, CRI 2003-031-1183, 13 September 2004 ............... 146

R v Ngahooro CA 201/98, 9 November 1998 143

R v Paea DC Christchurch CRN 0508705503 135

R v Power CA 187/96, 22 October 1996 143, 144

R v R [2015] NZHC 783 140

R v Rajsic HC Auckland CRI 2012-004-2810, 11 October 2012 ..................... 138, 141

R v Roberts (No 2) HC Auckland CRI 2005-092-14492, 22 November 2006 ...... 132–4, 142, 145

R v Sao Ene Yee HC, Wellington, CRI 2004-091-980, 21 February 2005 ................... 147

R v T (a mental patient) [1993] DCR 600 ........................................... 148

R v Te Moni [2009] NZCA 560 ........................................... 131, 138–40

R v Wira [2016] NZHC 869 .................................................... 140

S v Police HC Palmerston North CRI 2005-454-47, 8 December 2005 135

Solicitor-General v Dougherty CA 492/2011 [2012] 3 NZLR 586 8, 130, 133, 142–6

SR v R CA 783/ 2010 [2011] 3 NZLR 638 133–5

State of Western Australia v Stubley (No 2) [2011] WASC 292, 24 October 2011 134 Trow v Police HC, Auckland, CRI 2004-404-208, 10 September 2004 137, 139

UNITED KINGDOM

Alexander v Isleworth Crown Court [2009] EWHC 85 (Admin) 24

Attorney-General’s Reference (No 3 of 1998) [2000] QB 401 163

Bain v Smith 1980 SLT (Notes) 69 82

Bobbe v Poland [2017] EWHC 3161 (Admin) 33

C v Sevenoaks Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin) 69

City and County of Swansea v Swansea Crown Court [2016] EWHC 1389 (Admin) ........ 27, 79

Criminal Practice Directions [2015] EWCA Crim 1567 ........................... 53, 54, 78

Criminal Practice Directions I General Matters 3D ‘Vulnerable People in the Courts’ [2013] EWCA Crim 1631 .......................................... 69

Criminal Practice Directions I General Matters 3F.11 [2015] EWCA Crim 1567 ........... 56, 79

Criminal Practice Directions I General Matters 3F.12 ................................... 79

Criminal Practice Directions I General Matters 3F.13 79

Criminal Practice Directions I General Matters 3G ‘Vulnerable Defendants’ [2013] 1 WLR 3164 69

Galbraith v HM Advocate 2002 JC 1 93

Glancy v HM Advocate 2012 SCCR 52 91

HM Advocate v Bickerstaff 1926 JC 65 85

HM Advocate v Brown 1907 SC(J) 67 83, 94

HM Advocate v Jean Campbell or Bruce (1817) .................................... 83, 96

HM Advocate v Russell 1946 JC 37 ............................................. 95, 96

HM Advocate v Ward, High Court of Justiciary, 27 February 2015, unreported ......... 85, 88, 90

HM Advocate v Wilson, 1942 JC 75 .................................... 81, 84, 87, 94, 95

Hughes v HM Advocate 2002 JC 23 ................................................ 96

McEwan v HM Advocate, 2010 JC 95 ..............................................

McLachlan v Brown 1997 JC 222

Mikhailitchenko v Normand 1993 SLT 1138

M’Naghten’s Case (1843) 10 Ci & Fin 20; 8 ER 718

Moyle v R [2008] 13

Murphy v HM Advocate [2016] HCA JAC 118; 2017 SLT 143 49, 54, 88

Narey v HM Customs and Excise [2005] EWHC 784 (Admin) 26

Palmer v R [1971] AC 814 52

R v Ahmed [2014] EWCA Crim 2647 .............................................. 43

R v Antoine [2000] UKHL 20; [2001] 1 AC 340; [2000] 2 All ER 208 ............. 19, 21–3, 51, 52, 64, 65, 139, 163

R v B(M) [2012] EWCA Crim 770; [2013] 1 WLR 499; [2013] 1 Crim LR 90 .............................................. 19, 20, 23, 51, 52, 65

R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 .................................................. 55

R v Berry (1876) 1 QBD 447 38, 143

R v Berry (1977) 66 Cr App R 156 ................................................ 159

R v Beynon [1957] 2 All ER 513 ................................................... 24

R v Borkan [2004] EWCA 1642 ................................................ 24, 25

R v Brennan [2015] 1 WLR 2060 .................................................. 54

R v Burles [1970] 2 QB 191 16

R v Chai [2007] EWCA Crim 2647 18

R v Chal [2008] 1 Cr App R 18 53

R v Chinegwundoh [2015] EWCA Crim 109; [2015] 1 WLR 2818 36, 76

R v Chitolie [2016] EWCA Crim 14 25

R v Creed [2011] EWCA Crim 144 18, 53, 60

R v D(A) [2016] 4 WLR 122 53

R v Davies (1853) Car & Kir 328 .................................................. 57

R v Dewani (No 2) [2014] 1 WLR 3220 ............................................. 18

R v Diamond [2008] EWCA Crim 923 ....................................... 12, 39, 63

R v Dyson (1831) 7 C & P 305 ............................................. 57, 58, 105

R v Egan [1998] 1 Cr App R 121 .................................................. 19

R v Erskine [2009] EWCA Crim 1425; [2010] 1 WLR 183 .............. 42, 43, 48, 49, 63, 149

R v Friend [1997] 1 WLR 1433 95

R v Ghulam [2009] EWCA Crim 2285 24

R v Golds [2016] UKSC 61 54

R v Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611; [2002] QB 1030 52, 60

R v H [2003] UKHL 1; [2003] 1 WLR 411; [2003] 1 All ER 497 5, 17, 18, 21, 23, 36, 51, 60, 139

R v H [2015] EWCA Crim 782 35

R v Hamberger [2017] EWCA Crim 273 ......................................... 36, 79

R v Hussein [2005] EWCA Crim 3556 .............................................. 16

R v Jagnieszko [2008] EWCA Crim 3065 ............................................ 52

R v Janner, 7 December 2015, unreported............................................ 14

R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 ........................................................ 3

R v Lambert [2002] 2 AC 545.

R v Latus [2006] EWCA Crim 3187 43

R v Lawrence [1993] AC 699 (HL) 708 105

R v Lederman [2015] EWCA Crim 1308 13

R v Lee Kun (1916) 11 Cr App R 293 (CCA) 108

R v Lubemba [2014] EWCA Crim 2064 55

R v M (John) [2003] EWCA Crim 3452 12, 13, 35, 38, 39, 41, 45–7, 58, 62, 72

R v M, H, and Kerr [2001] EWCA Crim 2024; [2003] 1 WLR 411 (HL) 35, 36

R v Marcantonio and Chitolie [2016] EWCA Crim 14; [2016] 2 Cr App R 9 ................................... 13, 25, 36, 38–41, 44, 73, 80

R v MacCarthy [1967] 1 QB 68 ................................................... 24

R v McKenzie [2011] EWCA Crim 1550; [2011] 1 WLR 2807 ........................ 37, 53

R v Miller and Miller [2006] EWCA Crim 2391 ....................................... 25

R v Moyle [2008] EWCA Crim 3059 ........................................ 39, 63, 64

R v Murphy [2016] HCJAC 118 ............................................... 48, 50

R v Murray [2008] EWCA Crim 1792 63

R v Norman [2008] EWCA Crim 1810; [2009] 1 Cr App R 13 15, 16, 37, 51, 66

R v O’Donnell [1996] 1 Cr App R 286 36

R v Orr [2016] EWCA Crim 889 15, 36, 79, 80

R v Padola [1960] 1 QB 325; [1959] 3 All ER 418 12, 13, 25, 47, 59, 277

R v Pritchard (1836) Eng R 540; (1836) 7 C & P 303; 173 ER 135 8, 11–13, 15, 24, 25, 29–32, 34, 35, 38–41, 48, 57, 58, 62–64, 67, 68, 79, 80, 106, 108, 110, 112, 129, 142, 154, 175, 299–303

R v Rashid [2017] EWCA Crim 2 35, 47

R v Robertson [1968] 1 WLR 1767; [1968] 3 All ER 557; [1968] 52 Cr App R 690 ................................................ 12, 13, 25, 143

R v Scorgie [2003] EWCA Crim 1097 .............................................. 35

R v Walls [2011] EWCA Crim 443; [2011] 2 Cr App R 6 ......... 12, 25, 34, 40, 51, 53, 134, 149

R v Webb [1969] 2 QB 278 ...................................................... 16

R v Wells [2015] EWCA Crim 2; [2015] 1 WLR 499 .................... 19, 22, 51, 60, 62, 65

R v Young [2002] EWHC 548 (Admin); [2002] 2 Cr App R 12 65

R (on the application of AS) v Great Yarmouth Youth Court [2011] EWHC 2059 (Admin) 69

R (on the application of DB) v Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2008] EWCA Civ 1354 26

R (on the application of Ferris) v DPP [2004] EWHC 1221 (Admin) 66

R (on the application of OP) v MJ [2014] EWHC 1944 (Admin) 47

R (on the application of Young) v Central Criminal Court [2002] 2 Cr App R 178 52

Sheldrake v DPP [2005] 1 AC 264 ................................................. 91 Stewart v HM Advocate 1997 JC 183 ............................................... 87 Taitt v The State [2012] UKPC 38 ................................................ 144

TP, R v West London Youth Court [2005] EWHC 2583 (Admin) ..........................

2016 JC 93 ..............................................

UNITED STATES

Adams v United States ex rel McCann 317 US 269 (1942) ..............................

Ake v Oklahoma 470 US 1985 (1985) .............................................

Allard v Hellgemoe 572 F.2d 1 (1st Cir 1978) ........................................ 183 Allen v Illinois 397 US 337 (1970) ................................................

Argersinger v Hamlin 407 US 25 (1972) 176

Boykin v Alabama 395 US 238 (1969) 180

Brady v Maryland 373 US 83 (1963) 226

Brookhart v Janis 384 US 1 (1966) 180

Colorado v Connelly 479 US 157 (1986) 191

Cooper v Oklahoma 517 US 348 (1996) 214

Drope v Missouri 420 US 162 (1975) 155, 176, 179, 208, 209, 286

Duncan v Louisiana 391 US 145 (1988) ............................................ 177

Dusky v United States 362 US 402 (1960) ...................... 95, 155, 176, 181–5, 189–99, 202–4, 208, 210, 271, 286

Edwards v Indiana 554 US 164 (2008) ............................. 184, 185, 193, 194, 195

Faretta v California 422 US 806 (1975) ........................ 177, 180, 194–202, 209, 210

Ford v Wainwright 477 US 399 (1986) ............................................. 211

Gideon v Wainwright 372 US 335 (1963) 176

Godinez v Moran 509 US 389 (1993) 176, 183–5, 187–6, 198, 202–5, 209–11, 227, 286

Indiana v Edwards 554 US 164 (2008) 194–205, 211, 227, 228

Jackson v Indiana 406 US 715 (1972) 215, 220

Johnson v Zerbst 304 US 458 (1938) 180

Matthews v Eldridge 424 US 319 (1976) 213

McKaskle v Wiggins 465 US 168 (1984) 201

McWilliams v Dunn 137 S Ct 1790 (2017) ......................................... 214

Medina v California 505 US 437 (1992) ............................................ 214

Moran v Godinez 972 F2d 263 (9th Cir 1992) ....................................... 210

Palko v Connecticut 302 US 319 (1937) ............................................ 177

Parham v JR 442 US 584 (1979) .................................................. 214

Pate v Robinson 383 US 375 (1966) ........................................... 208, 209

People v Welch 976 P 2d 754 (Cal 1999) ........................................... 180

Powell v Alabama 287 US 45 (1932) ............................................... 176

Rennie v Klein 462 F Supp 1131 (D NJ 1973) ....................................... 214

Riggins v Nevada 504 US 127 (1992) .......................... 212, 214, 216, 220, 221, 226

Rock v Arkansas 483 US 44 (1987) 180

Sell v United States 539 US 166 (2003) 212, 217, 222–4, 226

Sieling v Eyman 478 F.2d 211 (9th Cir 1973) 183

State v Hayes 389 A 2d 1379 (NH 1978) 226

Treece v Maryland 547 A 2d 1054 (Md 1988) 184

US v Brandon 158 F 3d 947 (6th Cir 1998) 222

US v Gomes 289 F 3d 71 (2d Cir 2002) 222

US v Jones 463 US 354 (1983) ............................................... 222, 224

US v Mooney 123 F Supp 2d 442 (ND Ill 2000) ...................................... 180

US v Weston 255 F 3d 873 (DC Cir 2001) .................................. 221, 222, 226

Vitek v Jones 445 US 480 (1980) ............................................. 213, 214

Washington v Harper 494 US 211 (1990) ................... 211, 212, 214, 218, 223, 224, 228

Winship, Re 397 US 358 (1970) .............................................. 177, 223

Youngberg v Romeo 457 US 307 (1982) 213

COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Noble v Australia (2016) CRPD C/16/D/7/2012 ......................... 6, 7, 167, 168, 295

EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Andrey Yakovenko v Ukraine App no 63727/ 11, 13 March 2014 ......................... 239

Antoine v UK App no 62960/00, 13 May 2003 ........................... 22, 241, 242, 246

Aswat v UK App no 62176/14, 6 January 2015 ....................................... 239

Baytar v Turkey App no 45440/04, 14 October 2014 .................................. 238

Blokhin v Russia App no 47152/06, 14 November 2013 239

Bortnik v Ukraine App no 39582/04, 27 January 2011 238–40

Cuscani v UK App no 32771/ 96, 24 September 2002 238, 248

Cutean v Romania App no 53150/12, 2 December 2014 242

Engel v Netherlands (No 1) (1976) 1 EHRR 647 17, 18, 242

Gennadiy Medvedev v Russia App no 34184/03, 24 April 2012 237, 239

Grigoryevskikh v Russia App no 22/03, 9 April 2009 238

Güveç v Turkey App no 70337/01, 20 January 2009 237, 238

Kaçiu and Kotorri v Albania App no 33192/07, 25 June 2013 ............................ 241

Kerr v UK App no 63356/00, 23 September 2003............................. 239, 242, 246

Krakolinig v Austria App no 33992/07, 10 May 2012 .................................. 241

Kravchenko v Ukraine App no 23275/06, 24 June 2014 ............................ 240, 241

Liebreich v Germany App no 30443/03, 8 January 2008 .............................. 237–9

Marcello Viola v Italy App no 45106/04, 5 October 2006 ............................... 237

Mosbeux v Belgique (1991) 71 DR 269 264

Mościcki v Poland App no 52443/07, 14 June 2011 239

Nichitaylov v Ukraine App no 36024/03, 15 October 2009 241

Omelchenko v Ukraine App no 34592/06, 17 July 2014 240

PK v Finland App no 37442/97, 9 July 2002 242

Plonka v Poland App no 20310/02, 31 March 2009 240

Prezec v Croatia App no 48185/07, 15 October 2009 240

Pullicino v Malta App no 45441/99, 15 June 2000 .................................... 239

Pylnev v Russia App no 3038/03, 9 February 2010 237–9

R v Antoine, App no 62960/00, decision as to admissibility, 13 May 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19

Salduz v Turkey App no 36391/02, (GC) 27 November 2008 ............................ 240

SC v UK App no 60958/00 (2005) 40 EHRR 10 ................. 5, 42, 64, 72, 77, 237–9, 248

Sobko v Ukraine App no 15102/10, 17 December 2015 ................................ 241

Stanford v UK (A282-A) App No 16757/ 90 ..................................... 5, 64, 95

T v UK App No 24724/94, 16 December 1999 ............................... 64, 238, 248

T and V v UK (2000) 30 EHRR 121 95

Tarasov v Ukraine App no 17416/ 03, 31 October 2013 237, 238

Timergaliyev v Russia App no 40631/02, 14 October 2008 238

Todorov v Ukraine App no 16717/ 05, 12 January 2012 241

V v UK App No 24888/ 94, 16 December 1999 64

Vasiliy Ivashchenko v Ukraine App no 760/03, 26 July 2012 239

Vaudelle v France App no 35683/97, 30 January 2001 239

Welch v UK (1995) 20 EHRR 247 ................................................. 18

Winterwerp v Netherlands App no 6301/73 (1979) 2 EHRR 387 ...................... 61, 99

EXTRAORDINARY CHAMBERS IN THE COURTS OF CAMBODIA

Ieng Thirith, Dossier No 002//19-09-2007-ECCC-TC/SC(09), 13 December 2011; Dossier No 002/19-09-2007 ECCC-TC/SC(16), 14 December 2012; Dossier No 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, 13 September 2012 ..................... 281–4, 295–7

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT

Prosecutor v Laurent Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11, 2 November 2012; ICC-02/11-01/15, 25 November 2015 ................................. 275, 289, 290

Prosecutor v William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11, 1 July 2016 ...... 296

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA

Prosecutor v Karemera, ICTR-98-44-T, 10 September 2009 274, 291

Prosecutor v Nahimana, ICTR-99-52-T, 3 December 2003 ......................... 274, 280

Prosecutor v Nsengiyumva, ICTR-98-41-T, 19 April 2007 .............................. 274

Prosecutor v Théoneste Bagasora, ICTR-98-41-T, 19 April 2007.......................... 291

INTERNATIONAL

CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

Prosecutor v Delalić, Judgment, IT-96-21-A, App Ch, 20 February 2001 ................... 273

Prosecutor v Erdemović, IT-96-22-T), 29 November 1996 .............................. 289

Prosecutor v Goran Hadžić, IT-04-75-AR65.1, 13 April 2015; IT-04-75, 21 May 2015; IT-04-75-T, 26 October 2015; IT-04-75-T, 5 April 2016 ............... 274, 293, 294, 296

Prosecutor v Kovačević, IT-01-42/2- I, 2 June 2004; IT-01-42/2-I, 12 April 2006; IT-01-42/2-I, 17 November 2006; IT-01-42/2-AR11bis.1, 28 March 2007; IT-01-42/2-I, 5 September 2007 274, 284, 287–9, 295

Prosecutor v Sikirica, IT-95-8-S, 13 November 2001 289

Prosecutor v Slobodan Milošević, IT-02-54-AR73.7, 1 November 2004 291, 292

Prosecutor v Strugar, IT-01-42-T, 26 May 2004; IT-01-42-A, 17 July 2008; IT-01-42-ES, 16 January 2009 274, 279–82, 286, 288, 290, 293, 294, 297, 306