Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Citation | 1991 c. 25 |
(1) A jury shall not return a special verdict under section 2 of the (2) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 54 of the For section 4 of the
This section applies where on the trial of a person the question arises (at the instance of the defence or otherwise) whether the accused is under a disability, that is to say, under any disability such that apart from this Act it would constitute a bar to his being tried.If, having regard to the nature of the supposed disability, the court are of opinion that it is expedient to do so and in the interests of the accused, they may postpone consideration of the question of fitness to be tried until any time up to the opening of the case for the defence.If, before the question of fitness to be tried falls to be determined, the jury return a verdict of acquittal on the count or each of the counts on which the accused is being tried, that question shall not be determined.Subject to subsections (2) and (3) above, the question of fitness to be tried shall be determined as soon as it arises.where it falls to be determined on the arraignment of the accused and the trial proceeds, the accused shall be tried by a jury other than that which determined that question;where it falls to be determined at any later time, it shall be determined by a separate jury or by the jury by whom the accused is being tried, as the court may direct.A jury shall not make a determination under subsection (5) above except on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved.This section applies where in accordance with section 4(5) above it is determined by a jury that the accused is under a disability.on the evidence (if any) already given in the trial; andon such evidence as may be adduced or further adduced by the prosecution, or adduced by a person appointed by the court under this section to put the case for the defence,If as respects that count or any of those counts the jury are satisfied as mentioned in subsection (2) above, they shall make a finding that the accused did the act or made the omission charged against him.If as respects that count or any of those counts the jury are not so satisfied, they shall return a verdict of acquittal as if on the count in question the trial had proceeded to a conclusion.where the question of disability was determined on the arraignment of the accused, by a jury other than that which determined that question; andwhere that question was determined at any later time, by the jury by whom the accused was being tried.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) For section 6 of the that the proper verdict would have been one of not guilty by reason of insanity; orthat the case is not one where there should have been a verdict of acquittal, but there should have been findings that the accused was under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him.make an order that the appellant be admitted, in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991, to such hospital as may be specified by the Secretary of State; ora guardianship order within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983;a supervision and treatment order within the meaning of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1991; andan order for his absolute discharge.Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) above shall not apply where the offence to which the appeal relates is an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law.(2) For section 14 of the 1968 Act there shall be substituted the following sections—
- “(1) This section applies where, on an appeal under section 12 of this Act, the Court of Appeal, on the written or oral evidence of two or more registered medical practitioners at least one of whom is duly approved, are of opinion that—
- (a) the case is not one where there should have been a verdict of acquittal; but
- (b) there should have been findings that the accused was under a disability and that he did the act or made the omission charged against him.
To continue reading
Request your trial