This paper discusses the procedure in s.4A(2)(b) of the Criminal Justice (Insanity) Act 1964 for appointing an advocate following a finding that a criminal defendant is unfit to plead. In R v Norman, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the judge should appoint “the right person for this difficult task”, such as “counsel experienced in mental health issues”, as the responsibility placed on the person appointed is “quite different” to that placed on an advocate who can take instructions from a client. The paper explores the conflict between the s.4A(2)(b) procedure and international human rights instruments, and highlights the confusion surrounding the professional and ethical duties of the court-appointed advocate.
|Publication status||Published - 29 Jun 2016|
|Event||The Future for Fitness to Plead in the Criminal Courts - Northumbria University|
Duration: 29 Jun 2016 → …
|Other||The Future for Fitness to Plead in the Criminal Courts|
|Period||29/06/16 → …|