Search results

The concept of unfitness to plead is central to conduct of a fair trial for someone accused of a crime. The historical origins go back several centuries, developing through a number of legislative changes. The modern concept of unfitness to plead arose from a number of legal cases in the 19th century. The Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 followed a number of concerns over existing legislation. More recently, there have been a number of amendments made through the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004. This paper reviews the history and changes in legislation to the present day, and provides an example of the practical application of fitness to plead in practice. It also reviews relevant research and attempts to consider the future of this important medico‐legal term.

Increasing research evidence highlights the importance of recognising a person's learning disability early in their journey through the Criminal Justice System (CJS) and highlights the need for liaison and diversion schemes. This practice paper seeks to raise awareness of the importance of mental capacity and its alignment (or lack there of) with the issue of fitness to plead.

The Law Commission's recent consultation has highlighted the disparity of the Pritchard Test and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and has considered several provisional proposals for consideration. As a learning disability nurse within a Youth Offending Service, the author encounters young people on court Orders who struggle to understand the criminal justice process. To highlight the significance of this, and its relationship to practice, the paper proposes to discuss a young person's case.

Early recognition of a person's needs and mental capacity are crucial to ensure the right pathway is taken through the criminal justice system. Whether this be supporting the person to undertake their Order and delivery of an appropriate and understandable intervention or diversion away from the criminal justice system into services. Information sharing and working together are key factors to success.

This paper seeks to highlight the difficulties and dilemmas facing staff working within the criminal justice system in relation to the identification and support needs of people with learning difficulties. Learning disability nurses and those professionals working within learning disability services have a significant part to play in this area of work and can help to ensure that people with learning disabilities do not face double jeopardy and injustice.

Although precise numbers are unknown, it is generally acknowledged that between 5‐10% of the offending population are people with learning disabilities. While there are few provisions that explicitly target defendants with learning disabilities there is a general recognition in law that defendants must be able to understand and participate effectively in the criminal proceedings of which they are a part. The implications of the principle of effective participation are that criminal prosecution may be deemed inappropriate for certain defendants with learning disabilities, in which case they may be diverted away from criminal justice and into health care. There is scope for a variety of measures to be put into place to support defendants with learning disabilities to maximise their chances of participating effectively. However, in terms of statutory provision, there is a lack of parity between vulnerable witnesses and vulnerable defendants. Further, the absence of effective screening procedures to identify defendants' learning disabilities means that their support needs often go unrecognised and unmet.

People with intellectual disabilities commonly come into contact with the criminal justice system as victims, witnesses or suspects. Their intellectual disabilities may make them disadvantaged in relation to all components of the criminal justice system, including police interviews, fitness to plead and stand trial, capacity to give evidence in court, and issues to do with criminal responsibility and sentencing. The focus in this paper is on police interviews and the capacity of adults with intellectual disabilities to give evidence in Court. Research into the types of vulnerability seen by people interviewed by police have focused on interviewees' understanding of the Oath and their legal rights, suggestibility, acquiescence, compliance and perceptions of the consequences of making self‐incriminating admissions. The essential components of any interview and testifying in court require that the person can communicate effectively and give reliable answers and accounts of events. Research into police interviews has highlighted the importance of taking into account the interviewee's vulnerabilities and providing appropriate support, and suggests a more humane approach to interviews and when vulnerable people testify in Court.

Offenders with intellectual disability (ID) who commit arson and other acts of fire setting are over-represented in the criminal justice system in Australia, as in many other jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the judicial considerations that influence sentencing in these cases.

Case law was utilised to locate and analyse judges’ sentencing remarks for offenders with ID found guilty of an offence of arson. These data were subject to Inductive Content Analysis to establish the major judicial considerations in sentencing.

Seven common issues emerged: general deterrence, seriousness of arson, rehabilitation, sentencing options, moral culpability, protection of the community, and punishment. Judges noted that they handed down reduced sentences to persons with ID relative to the severity of their offending, that they considered people with ID to have low levels of moral culpability, and that these offenders did not provide good examples for community deterrence.

The current study highlights the need for judges to have available a range of sentencing options, including diversion and treatment/rehabilitation programmes for persons with ID, particularly for those involved in more serious offences such as arson.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of liaison and diversion services working in the lower courts (also known as Magistrates’ courts) with regard to autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and their assessment, in particular, the role of pre-sentence and psychiatric reports and interviews.

Current practice is described in the lower courts in the context of current legislation and procedures.

When writing reports, there is a need for expertise to offer an opinion on future risk, disposal and what needs to be in place to support people with ASDs. No assumptions should be made when reporting on the basis of an ASD diagnosis alone and each case must be assessed on its individual merits while ensuring that individual human rights are protected.

There is currently a sparse literature examining ASD in court settings. This paper seeks to clarify the current practice.

The minimum age of criminal responsibility (MACR) was set at ten years old in 1963. Since then a deeper appreciation of children's rights and understanding of their unique capabilities and experiences has been gained. This paper seeks to examine the implications of these developments for our understanding of this MACR.

Research is reviewed that illuminates questions about children's culpability, their competence to participate in the criminal justice system (CJS) and the consequences of criminalising them at a young age. Recent understandings of how children's rights apply to the MACR are also summarised.

Developmental science and human rights perspectives are inconsistent with a MACR no younger than 12 years.

The paper is one of the first to extensively apply developmental science research to the MACR. The author finds that although a just and rehabilitative CJS may be achievable in the case of most adolescent defendants, this is an unrealistic goal for younger children who instead require a welfare‐based system that addresses underlying causes of antisocial behaviour, facilitates accountability and ensures child protection.

The purpose of this paper is to critically explore the impact of anti-social behaviour orders (ASBOs) on young people with mild learning disabilities. In an attempt to identify why young people (under the age of 18) with learning disabilities are exposed to the criminal justice system, an emerging body of evidence is considered. The research provides an insight into some of the difficulties vulnerable young people may encounter, such as receiving unrealistic prohibitions and the lack of support provided after receiving a court order. The research also highlights the lack of professional awareness and understanding of learning disabilities and considers the level of training available to professionals. The paper closes with a discussion of the themes identified from the literature reviewed and some of the changes proposed by the coalition government regarding the future of the criminal justice system.

Although a strict systematic review of the literature was not required for the literature review, a less rigorous systematic approach was employed. When searching for literature, the general principles and guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration were employed, this included inclusion and exclusion criteria. The eligibility criteria guided the focus of the literature review and determined the relevance of the research. During the literature review it was recognised that much of the research is discussion/review based, and currently there is a limited amount of empirical research available. An eco-systems perspective was employed to consider the connections between young people, the environment and anti-social behaviour (ASB).

The findings from the literature review, illustrate a growing body of evidence which suggests that young people with learning disabilities have been “caught up” in ASB measures. It is positive that more recently, there has been a much needed focus on early identification and diversion away from the criminal justice system, for those with mental health conditions and learning disabilities. The research findings presented by Cant and Standen, and Talbot, provide possible explanations as to why vulnerable young people are made subject to ASBOs. Indeed this lack of sufficient training has not gone unnoticed by other researchers.

Although the author is aware of the valuable insight qualitative research can provide, the methodological limitations raise questions regarding the validity of the research the author has considered, especially as most of the research the author has drawn upon is based on exploratory approaches. Nevertheless, the concurring themes drawn from the research findings raise much curiosity around the potential links between disability awareness training and the identification of young people with mild learning disabilities.

Despite the governments recent proposal to abolish the ASBO and introduce a new approach to tackling ASB, it appears unclear as to how the new measures will differ from the existing ones. The recent proposed measures are set out in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. Although the accompanying guidance for frontline professionals clearly sets out the need for early intervention, which sits alongside a new menu of ASB powers, including the Criminal Behaviour Order (which seems very similar to the ASBO), it is disappointing that the guidance does not give any direction of how new measures will impact on young people with learning disabilities.

Although the ASBO was not initially designed to target children and young people, it is clear from the literature that certain families and young people are often singled out and labelled as “anti-social”. It is unsurprising, that children and young people from poor families, with low educational attainment, limited employment opportunities and live in the most marginalised and deprived communities are amongst those who are singled out as being particularly problematic.

The research findings have helped me to understand some of the potential difficulties vulnerable young people may encounter if they come into contact with the criminal justice system. As there appears to be a lack of empirical research available which considers the connections between learning disabilities and ASBOs, further research within this area of practice would be beneficial. The research invites an alternative perspective which adds to the existing literature.

This case report highlights initial difficulties in identifying poor effort and malingering in relation to memory, cognitive deficits and mental disorder. We provide information on the outcome for a man charged with murder who was found to be unable to stand trial as a result of poor memory. After being sentenced by way of a hospital and restriction order, he was found upon inpatient assessment to be malingering and was remitted back to prison in order to continue his murder trial. We comment on the psychological tests, physical investigations and inpatient assessment required to confirm the presence of memory malingering.