The concept of fitness to plead has its origins in the medieval courts of England, where the ritual of court proceedings demanded that accused individuals respond to the charges against them. Being fit to plead, however, has involved into a fundamental principle of British law and those legal systems that have evolved from it, and it is now associated with the principle of a fair trial. But in spite of its long heritage, the meaning of "being fit to plead", its implications and its consequences all remain vague. Little research has taken place in relation to the concept or its applications in England and Wales, and much of what has been said about fitness to plead has taken place in a factual vacuum.; This book is the result of extensive research into both the development of the concept of fitness to plead and its application. It is based on a review of all individuals found unfit in England and Wales between 1976 and 1988 and provides detailed information about those found unfit to plead and the circumstances associated with their findings, together with follow-up of the psychiatric and legal outcomes. Problems with the working of the law in relation to fitness to plead are discussed and recent changes to it are critically reviewed. The end result is a full consideration of whether the modern concept of fitness to plead protects individuals from unfair trials, and the courts from miscarriages of justice.

The concept of fitness to plead has its origins in the medieval courts of England, where the ritual of court proceedings demanded that accused individuals respond to the charges against them. Being fit to plead, however, has involved into a fundamental principle of British law and those legal systems that have evolved from it, and it is now associated with the principle of a fair trial. But in spite of its long heritage, the meaning of "being fit to plead", its implications and its consequences all remain vague. Little research has taken place in relation to the concept or its applications in England and Wales, and much of what has been said about fitness to plead has taken place in a factual vacuum.; This book is the result of extensive research into both the development of the concept of fitness to plead and its application. It is based on a review of all individuals found unfit in England and Wales between 1976 and 1988 and provides detailed information about those found unfit to plead and the circumstances associated with their findings, together with follow-up of the psychiatric and legal outcomes. Problems with the working of the law in relation to fitness to plead are discussed and recent changes to it are critically reviewed. The end result is a full consideration of whether the modern concept of fitness to plead protects individuals from unfair trials, and the courts from miscarriages of justice.

The law relating to fitness to plead is an increasingly important area of the criminal law. While criminalization may be justified whenever an offender commits a sufficiently serious moral wrong requiring that he or she be called to account, the doctrine of fitness to plead calls this principle into question in the case of a person who lacks the capacity or ability to participate meaningfully in a criminal trial. In light of the emerging focus on capacity-based approaches to decision-making and the international human rights requirement that the law should treat defendants fairly, this volume offers a benchmark for the theory and practice of fitness to plead, providing readers with a unique opportunity to consider differing perspectives and debate on the future development and direction of a doctrine which has up till now been under-discussed and under-researched. The fitness to plead rules stand as an exception to notions of public accountability for criminal wrongdoing yet, despite the doctrine's long-standing function in criminal procedure, it has proven complex to apply in practice and has given rise to many varied legislative models and considerable litigation in different jurisdictions. Particularly troublesome is the question of what is to be done with someone who has been found unfit to stand trial. Here the law is required to balance the need to protect those defendants who are unable to participate effectively in their own trial, whether permanently or for a defined period, and the need to protect the public from people who may have caused serious social harm as a result of their antisocial behaviour. The challenge for law reformers, legislators, and judges, is to create rules that ensure that everyone who can properly be tried is tried, while seeking to preserve confidence in the fairness of the legal system by ensuring that people who cannot properly engage in the criminal trial process are not forced to endure it.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.

Bringing together previously disparate discussions on criminal responsibility from law, psychology, and philosophy, this book provides a close study of mental incapacity defences, tracing their development through historical cases to the modern era.

This paper discusses the law on unfitness to plead or to be tried in criminal proceedings. The law on unfitness to plead is concerned with whether or not an accused is able to stand trial and, if not, the procedure that should be used to deal with that accused. Where there is an issue of unfitness to plead it is not the accused's guilt that is considered but whether they are 'under a disability' and if so the jury must determine whether or not the accused did the act or made the omission charged. In this paper the analysis of the modern law on unfitness to plead is set within the broader context of the law relating to vulnerable defendants, the Mental Health Act 1983 as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007, and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. A number of proposals are put forward, primarily that there should be a new revised single legal test which assesses whether the accused has decision-making capacity for trial. The test should not require that any decision the accused makes must be rational or wise