In:
The Journal of Criminal Law, SAGE Publications, Vol. 62, No. 4 ( 1998-08), p. 360-373
Abstract:
Since the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 there has had to be a ‘trial of the facts’ to determine whether a defendant found unfit to be tried ‘did the act or made the omission charged against him as the offence’ In Egan (below) the Court of Appeal held that by the ‘act’ was meant all elements of the offence. This holding, while meritorious, plainly violates the intention of the 1991 Act, ignores the history of the phrase ‘act charged as an offence’, and is inconsistent with the meaning that has to be attributed to the phrase when the jury are considering whether to return a special verdict of insanity. It also makes for a further anomaly when a defendant unfit to be tried seeks an acquittal on the ground that he lacked mens rea because of insanity. The proposals of the Law Commission's Criminal Law Team for ‘Counts in an Indictment’ will go some, but not necessarily the whole, way to helping courts identify exactly what is the ‘act charged as the offence’.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
0022-0183
,
1740-5580
DOI:
10.1177/002201839806200407
Language:
English
Publisher:
SAGE Publications
Publication Date:
1998
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2132313-6
SSG:
2
