| JUSTICES — Summary proceedings — Insanity — Defendant charged with assaulting police officer in execution of duty — Defendant pleading defence of insanity — District judge adjourning trial with view to making hospital or guardianship order — Whether defendant entitled to trial — Mental Health Act 1983, s 37(3)
R (Singh) v Stratford Magistrates’ Court [2007] EWHC 1582 (Admin)
QBD: Hughes LJ and Treacy J: 3 July 2007
Where a hospital or guardianship order was made under s 37(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983, there was no entitlement to a trial under s 37(3).
The Queen’s Bench Divisional Court so held when dismissing the claim for judicial review by the claimant, Surat Singh, of the decision of a district judge at Stratford Magistrates’ Court dated 10 May 2006 to decline to change his decision of 12 April 2006 to adjourn the claimant’s trial for a second psychiatric report with a view to considering making either a hospital or guardianship order under s 37(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 without convicting the accused under s 37(3) of the 1983 Act.
The defendant was charged with the summary offence of assaulting a police officer in the execution of his duty, contrary to s 89 of the Police Act 1996. He pleaded not guilty and it was indicated that the defence of insanity would be advanced. A psychiatric report was served expressing the opinion that at the time of the incident he was labouring under such defect of reason from a disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of his act. It was not suggested that he was unfit to stand trial. The district judge adjourned the trial for a second psychiatric report. He did so with a view to proceeding under s 37(3) of the 1983 Act, that is to say in order to consider making either a hospital or guardianship order without convicting the accused.
HUGHES LJ said that the claimant contended that the magistrate was obliged to proceed to verdict. The natural reading of s 37(3) of the 1983 Act was that it provided the magistrate with the power, in an appropriate case, to abstain from either convicting or acquitting, but instead to make a hospital or guardianship order. It was common ground that a hospital or guardianship order might be made in a case such as the present, if the conditions for it were met. The prosecution contended that it might be made without acquittal, while the claimant contended that even if it was made, he was also entitled to acquittal. The judgments of the Divisional Court in R (P) v Barking Youth Court [2002] 2 Cr App R 294 and Crown Prosecution Service v P [2007] EWHC 946 (Admin) showed that there was no entitlement to the trial of an issue; rather the interests of justice and of the accused must be considered individually in each case. An accused or his representatives must have been entitled to have fully considered the submission that there should be a trial of the issue of insanity even if an order under s 37(3) was likely. It might have been very important to the accused that it be established that he was insane, rather than malicious, particularly if he was now significantly better. It might also have been of real concern to others involved, or to the public, that it be known that he was legally insane at the time of the acts charged. If there was such good reason, it was open to the magistrate to determine the issue of insanity without returning a verdict. He could then, in a suitable case, go on to consider s 37(3). If he contemplated taking such a course, he must make clear that the option of s 37(3) would remain for consideration afterwards. On the facts of the case, the application for an order requiring the magistrate to conduct a trial was refused and the case was remitted for further consideration.
TREACY J agreed.
|
