From time to time, I will be posting about legal matters. Please be aware that these posts reflect my understanding of the material and are not a formal legal advice! If you don't agree with my facts, opinions and interpretations, please post a comment!
To start with - the biggie - fitness to stand trial.
This issue impacts directly into ethical obligations of the legal profession. If there is a question of somebody being unfit to stand trial, it is unethical for the legal practitioners to proceed unless the matter is resolved. Therefore, be prepared that if you raise that issue, there will be a flurry of activity, questioning, requests for supplementary reports, etc. etc. Of course, it is unethical for us to avoid this question just because it will have an effect of throwing a stone into a beehive.
Anyway, memory problems do not make a person unfit to stand trial, and this is clearly said in the Act. There are 6 reasons a person may be unfit, and it is enough if only one of them is present. The reasons include:
- being unable to understand the nature of the charge
- being unable to enter a plea and exercise the right to challenge jurors or the jury
- being unable to understand the nature of the trial
- being unable to follow the course of the trial
- being unable to understand the substantial effect of any evidence that may be given in support of the prosecution
- being unable to give instruction to the legal practitioner.
The link to the actual Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 Act No 65/1997 is here. The bits of interest are: Part 2.6 and 2.7.
It is important to remember that intellectual disability alone is not usually considered to be enough to be unfit to stand trial.
Cheers,
Izabela
