Category:Unfitness and insanity cases

The old category structure used on this page is comprehensive as it contains every relevant case. The new database structure was introduced in 2019. It is more potentially useful than the old categorisation system: it includes all cases since January 2017, but only a minority of older cases: see Special:Drilldown/Cases. The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page. Asterisks mark those cases which have been added to the new database structure.

Case and summary	Date added	Categories
* Insanity defence M'Naghten's case [1843] UKHL J16 — This case set out the insanity defence.	2022‑09‑07 12:56:22	1843 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 1843/06/19 cases
* Ex turpi causa Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB) — The claimant killed three men, was found not guilty of murder by reason of insanity, then sought damages from G4S, the police, the NHS trust and the county council. The argument that his claim should be struck out on the grounds of illegality was unsuccessful: "The law would not be condoning wrongdoing because the jury's verdict means there was none."	2022‑05‑23 12:39:52	2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022/05/20 cases
* M'Naghten Rules and choice R v Keal [2022] EWCA Crim 341 — (1) In order to establish the defence of insanity within the M'Naghten Rules on the ground of not knowing the act was "wrong", the defendant must establish both that (a) he did not know that his act was unlawful (i.e. contrary to law) and (b) he did not know that his act was "morally" wrong (also expressed as wrong "by the standards of ordinary people"). "Wrong" means both against the law and wrong by the standards of ordinary reasonable people. (2) Under the M'Naghten Rules, the defence of insanity is not available to a defendant who, although he knew what he was doing was wrong, believed that he had no choice but to commit the act in question. (3) The current law on insanity cannot be interpreted as involving an element of "choice", as significant changes to an aspect of our criminal law that has remained undisturbed for so long, laden with policy choices as they would be, are more properly for Parliament. (4) The judge's direction of law in the present case was appropriate and the convictions are safe.	2022‑03‑19 20:53:23	2022 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2022/03/18 cases
* Fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings Ihenacho v London Borough of Croydon [2021] EWCA Crim 798 — The appellant had dishonestly made welfare benefits claims, was deemed to have benefitted in the sum of £590,316.08, and a confiscation order equalling her realisable assets of £283,214.90 was made. She argued that fresh psychiatric evidence showed she had been unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing so the matter should be reconsidered, and without the s10 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 assumptions (assumptions to be made in case of criminal lifestyle). The Court of Appeal admitted the fresh evidence but held that it had not been shown on the balance of probabilities that she was not fit to plead at the relevant time.	2021‑05‑30 08:32:42	2021 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2021/05/27 cases
* Insanity Loake v CPS [2017] EWHC 2855 (Admin) — "For the purposes of this appeal we shall assume that the Appellant pursued a course of conduct which objectively amounted to harassment. The real issue is the question whether the defence of insanity is available on a charge of harassment contrary to Section 2(1) of the PFHA given the terms of Section 1(1)(b). ... It follows that we answer 'Yes' to the question posed in the stated case: 'Is the defence of insanity available for a defendant charged with an offence of harassment, contrary to Section 2(1) PFHA?' ... Finally, we add this. Although in this judgment we have held that the M'Naghten Rules apply to the offence of harassment contrary to Section 2 of the PFHA just as they do to all other criminal offences, this should not be regarded as any encouragement to frequent recourse to a plea of insanity. M'Naghten's Case makes clear that every person is presumed to be sane. The burden lies on a defendant to prove on a balance of probabilities that he or she falls within the M'Naghten Rules. The offences in the PFHA generally require a "course of conduct", that is, conduct on more than one occasion (see Section 7). In practice, prosecutions are generally brought in respect of conduct repeated many times over a significant period. We do not anticipate that someone who has engaged in such conduct will readily be able to show that throughout that period they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or that throughout that time they did not know what they were doing was wrong, in the necessary sense. If the defence is to be relied upon, it will require psychiatric evidence of great cogency addressing the specific questions contained in the M'Naghten Rules. In the Crown Court, by Section 1 of the 1991 Act, the special verdict may not be returned except on the evidence of two registered medical practitioners. In the absence of cogent psychiatric evidence about the specific relevant aspects of a defendant's mental state throughout his alleged course of conduct, we would expect magistrates and judges to deal robustly with claimed defences of insanity."	2018‑02‑04 16:28:33	2017 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2017/11/16 cases
* Legal representation in criminal trial R v Holloway [2016] EWCA Crim 2175 — The defendant unsuccessfully argued that legal representation should have been imposed on him despite his decision to dispense with his legal representation.	2017‑02‑08 21:06:39	2016 cases, Cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/12/20 cases
R v Orr [2016] EWCA Crim 889, [2016] MHLO 21 — "The appeal concerns the definition of 'fitness to plead' and the process engaged by the trial judge in the instant trial which proceeded after he found the defendant 'unfit to be cross examined'. ... Once the issue of fitness to plead has been raised it must be determined. In this case, the judge explicitly found that the appellant had been fit to participate in his trial up to the point of cross examination and thereby implicitly determined that the appellant was no longer able to fully participate in his trial within the 'Pritchard' refined criteria. In these circumstances, the procedure to be adopted was clearly set out by section Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, 4A. We agree with the submission that this is a statutory mandatory requirement which cannot be avoided by the court's general discretion to order proceedings otherwise, however beneficial to the defendant they may appear. It follows that, in this case, the jury should not have been allowed to return a verdict, other than a verdict of acquittal if they were not satisfied on the evidence already given in the trial that the appellant did the act charged against him. The appeal against conviction must be allowed."	2016‑07‑09 21:55:06	2016 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
* Fitness to plead R v Marcantonio [2016] EWCA Crim 14 — "This is the judgment in two cases, an appeal against conviction (R v. Marcantonio) and an application for permission to appeal against conviction (R v. Chitolie), which have in common the submission that the appellant/applicant in each case was unfit to plead, within section 4, Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, at the time of his trial, and that this court should therefore quash his conviction and consider the exercise of its powers under section 6, Criminal Appeals Act 1968. A third case (R v. T) was heard at the same time. A separate judgment is handed down in that case which, because of the orders made, is subject to reporting restrictions."	2016‑02‑25 01:02:13	2016 cases, Cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii, 2016/02/24 cases
R v Wells [2015] EWCA Crim 2, [2015] MHLO 5 — "In each appeal and application before the court, the defendant has been found unfit to plead: that is to say, based on medical evidence, the court has found that one or more of the following criteria is satisfied namely that he or she does not have the ability to plead to the indictment, to understand the course of the proceedings, to instruct a lawyer, to challenge a juror, to understand the evidence. ... Where a defendant's disability impacts on his/her ability to take part in a trial but he/she is not otherwise affected by a psychiatric condition such as renders what is said in interview unreliable (whether or not the delusional traits are apparent on the face of the interview), there is no reason why the jury should not hear them albeit with an appropriate warning. When considering the extent to which evidence of the interview should be admitted, it remains relevant to consider all the circumstances."	2015‑01‑30 09:41:02	2015 cases, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases, Judgment available on Bailii
R v Coley [2013] EWCA Crim 223, [2013] MHLO 23 — "We have heard these three cases in succession because they have some features in common. Each raises a (different) question connected with the interplay between the law relating to voluntary intoxication and the law relating to insanity or (non-insane) automatism. Each calls, however, for consideration of its very particular facts. Neither individually nor collectively do they provide an occasion for any wide-ranging general statement of the law of insanity, still less of loss of capacity generally. We know that this area of the law is under active consideration by the Law Commission, which work will, we think, be of value. Although there have historically been very few cases which raise insanity, that has been because the statutory provisions governing the disposal orders which must be made if there is a verdict of insanity have historically inhibited attempts to rely on it. More recent changes in those disposal provisions may well lead to an increase in numbers. Any review must, critically, address both the law of loss of capacity and the means of disposal in such cases, so as to pay proper regard both to the interests of the individual defendant and to the public risk which he represents."	2013‑03‑27 22:43:06	2013 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
AG's reference (no 3 of 1998) [1999] EWCA Crim 835 — "The Court of Appeal is asked to give its opinion on the following point of law: What has to be proved when an inquiry is embarked upon under the Trial of Lunatics Act 1883, to determine whether the Defendant 'did the act or made the omission charged'?"	2012‑12‑20 22:47:18	2012 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v B [2012] EWCA Crim 1799, [2012] MHLO 119 — The trial judge found the appellant unfit to plead. The appellant had admitted the act charged during an interview under caution, and the judge refused to exclude that evidence. On the basis of that evidence, the jury found that the appellant had done the act charged. (1) Given that the appellant's mental state was the same during interview as when found unfit to plead, the Court of Appeal found it impossible to understand how the interview could have been admitted: the finding that he had done the act was therefore set aside. (2) The Court of Appeal would have ordered a retrial but has no power to do; the court noted that it was 'high time that Parliament remedied this most unfortunate error in the law'.	2012‑12‑17 00:16:25	2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v B [2012] EWCA Crim 770, [2012] MHLO 42 — The appellant, an autistic young man who was prosecuted for voyeurism for looking into a swimming pool cubicle, was found by the judge to be unfit to be tried and by the jury to have committed the act charged against him. Voyeurism consists of, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, observing another person doing a private act, knowing that the other person does not consent to being observed for sexual gratification (s67 Sexual Offences Act 2003). (1) Contrary to the judge's direction, the 'act' includes 'for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification' (only the knowledge was part of the state of mind); hence, the jury's determination was unsafe and the appeal would be allowed. (2) The question of whether the jury should have had expert evidence on whether the appellant had committed the act was (although treated with some doubt) left open for argument in a future case. (3) A Sexual Offences Prevention Order could only be made 'for the purpose of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant'; (obiter) there was no proper basis for making this order. (4) Because of a gap in the legislation, there was no power to order a retrial, even if the court had wanted to: s16(4) Criminal Appeal Act 1968 requires the court, when allowing such an appeal, to quash the finding and direct that a verdict of acquittal be recorded.	2012‑04‑28 20:38:04	2012 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Walton (aka Wright) [2010] EWCA Crim 2255 — Criminal appeal (fitness to plead).	2011‑08‑09 20:02:02	2010 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v MB [2010] EWCA Crim 1684 — (1) It was unfair to try the appellant, who was unfit to plead, with a co-defendant who made allegations against him in an attempt to exculpate herself, so the finding that he had committed the acts charged against him was unsafe. (2) This successful appeal meant that he had to be acquitted and that, because of a lacuna in the law, the Secretary of State now had no power to remit him for trial on the basis that he had become fit to plead.	2010‑07‑23 06:42:29	2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on MHLO, Judgment missing from Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Shulman [2010] EWCA Crim 1034 — (1) For the convictions the court substituted findings that the appellant was under a disability at the time of trial, namely he was unfit to plead, and that he did the acts charged against him. (2) In respect of each count a restricted hospital order was imposed, in place of the prison sentences.	2010‑05‑22 11:57:01	2010 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, No transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Juncal v UK 32357/09 [2010] ECHR 249 — Lawfulness of detention. Statement of facts and questions to the parties lodged at court.	2010‑03‑02 20:37:47	2010 cases, ECHR, ECHR deprivation of liberty cases, Judgment available on Bailii, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Her Majesty's Advocate v S [1999] ScotHC 183 — Fitness to plead.	2009‑11‑30 23:02:46	1999 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Scottish cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
C v Sevenoaks Youth Court [2009] EWHC 3088 (Admin) — (1) When trying a young child, and most particularly a child such as C who is only 12 with learning and behavioural difficulties, notwithstanding the absence of any express statutory power, the Youth Court has a duty under its inherent powers and under the Criminal Procedure Rules to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that he has a fair trial, not just during the proceedings, but beforehand as he and his lawyers prepare for trial; in this case, C required an intermediary. (2) As the MoJ had voluntarily accepted responsibility for the payment of intermediaries, the LSC decision not to provide funding was lawful. (3) The CPS decision to continue with the trial was lawful.	2009‑11‑30 22:34:04	2009 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Other criminal law cases, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Ghulam [2009] EWCA Crim 2285 — Under CPIA 1964 s4 the court must not make a determination that the defendant is unfit to plead without medical evidence from two medical practitioners; however, where the medical evidence of unfitness to plead is only available from one medical practitioner, the judge is not bound to adjourn the trial but can make a determination that the defendant is fit to plead.	2009‑10‑24 08:54:16	2009 cases, Detailed summary, ICLR summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Grant [2008] EWCA Crim 1870 — Based on recently-obtained medical evidence that the appellant's significant learning disability and unfitness to plead was masked by his external demeanour and physical appearance, his conviction (and 3-year community order) was quashed and substituted with a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity (and a 2-year supervision order).	2009‑10‑24 08:31:14	2008 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Blouet) v Bath and Wansdyke Magistrates Court [2009] EWHC 759 (Admin) — Fitness to plead - guidance on procedure to be followed by magistrates' court.	2009‑06‑15 21:12:57	2009 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (London Borough of Harrow) v Maidstone Crown Court [1999] EWHC Admin 385 — A Crown Court judge’s purported finding that a defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity was outside his jurisdiction and so not pursuant to the indictment, and so could be challenged by judicial review. [MHLR.]	2009‑04‑11 20:38:41	1999 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, MHLR summary, Pages using DynamicPageList3 parser function, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Borkan [2004] EWCA Crim 1642 — The judge was right not to adjourn for a psychiatric report on fitness to plead and stand trial, as he had two reports already stating that the defendant was not unfit; a jury could not determine fitness to plead or stand trial without supporting medical evidence, and on the facts there was none; appeal dismissed.	2009‑04‑11 16:01:12	2004 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v M (John) [2003] EWCA Crim 3452 — The principal issue in this appeal concerns the test to be applied as a matter of law in determining whether an accused is fit to plead to the charge, or charges, against him.	2009‑04‑11 15:27:27	2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v H [2003] UKHL 1 — Article 6 does not apply to proceedings under sections 4 (finding of unfitness to plead) and 4A (finding that the accused did the act or made the omission charged against him) Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.	2009‑04‑11 15:15:27	2003 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Fairley (Terry James) [2003] EWCA Crim 1625 — Having found the defendant unfit to plead, the court had no power to impose a hospital order or restriction order; the proper course would have been to consider an admission order with restrictions; the orders were quashed and the case remitted to the Crown Court. [NB the law has since changed.]	2009‑04‑11 15:09:51	2003 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Shepherd (Jack) [2002] EWCA Crim 1091 — Conviction quashed and substituted with an admission order with restrictions as, had the issue been raised, on the evidence the jury would have found that the defendant was unfit to plead but had done the act.	2009‑04‑11 14:48:25	2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Johnson (Frank) [2002] EWCA Crim 1900 — Conviction quashed as during trial the defendant had become unfit to plead.	2009‑04‑11 14:39:43	2002 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v M [2001] EWCA Crim 2024 — Article 6 does not apply to proceedings under sections 4 (finding of unfitness to plead) and 4A (finding that the accused did the act or made the omission charged against him) Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.	2009‑04‑11 14:15:36	2001 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Grant [2001] EWCA Crim 2611 — Having been charged with murder and found unfit to be tried, a defendant cannot rely on lack of intent and/or provocation during the exercise under s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (finding that the defendant did the act or made the omission) as only the actus reus needs to be proved; appeal against admission order and restriction order under s5 refused.	2009‑04‑11 14:03:57	2001 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Antoine v UK 62960/00 [2003] ECHR 709 — The claimant was detained under a hospital order, it having been found that he was unfit to plead but had done the act. His complaint was based on Article 6 (unable to participate effectively, no trial within reasonable time, breach of presumption of innocence), Article 3 (living under threat of further prosecution), and Article 5 (arbitrary detention). Application declared inadmissible.	2009‑04‑09 21:15:04	2003 cases, Brief summary, ECHR, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Hasani v Blackfriars Crown Court [2005] EWHC 3016 (Admin) — If an accused person is found to be unfit to plead under s4 Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 but becomes fit to plead before he is dealt with under 5, the court is not required to follow the procedures in sections 4A and 5 (which would probably lead to an absolute discharge); instead, a second s4 hearing should take place and if appropriate the necessary order for arraignment made.	2009‑01‑17 22:48:03	2005 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v B [2008] EWCA Crim 1997 — CRIME— Plea — Fitness to plead — Two among several defendants found unfit to plead — Jury yet to be empanelled — Judge finding single jury incapable in principle of hearing case against fit and unfit defendants together — Whether such conclusion correct. Where one of several defendants in the same criminal proceedings became unfit to stand trial before a jury had been empanelled there was nothing in principle to prevent a single empanelled jury subsequently proceeding to hear the trial of all the defendants, although in the case of the unfit defendant the jury would now be looking to the question whether he had committed the actus reus of the relevant offence.	2008‑09‑23 12:11:00	2008 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Antoine [1999] EWCA Crim 1171 — Post-judgment discussion.	2008‑09‑22 06:33:31	1999 cases, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Antoine [1999] EWCA Crim 1170 — Court of Appeal judgment.	2008‑09‑22 06:33:30	1999 cases, Judgment available offline, Judgment missing from Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Antoine [2000] UKHL 20 — "The issue which arises on this appeal is whether an accused person charged with murder is entitled to rely on the defence of diminished responsibility under section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957, when he has been found by a jury to be unfit to plead by reason of mental disability, and a jury proceeds under section 4A(2) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (as substituted by section 2 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991) to determine whether he did the act charged against him as the offence."	2008‑09‑22 06:33:28	2000 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (A) v Harrow Crown Court [2003] EWHC 2020 (Admin) — The court order detaining the claimant under s37/41 MHA 1983 following a finding of unfitness to plead was irregular (as ultra vires s5 CPIA 1964 as then enacted) and was quashed; however, the detention was in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and was not arbitrary, so there was no breach of Article 5.	2008‑09‑22 06:13:47	2003 cases, Detailed summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Juncal) v SSHD [2008] EWCA Civ 869 — Lawfulness of detention.	2008‑09‑13 07:43:00	2008 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Leslie Norman [2008] EWCA Crim 1810 — Criminal appeal. Fitness to plead.	2008‑09‑13 07:41:02	2008 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
Narey v HM Customs and Excise [2005] EWHC 784 (Admin) — s5 CPIA 1964.	2008‑09‑12 17:33:22	2005 cases, Judgment available on Bailii, No summary, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Surat Singh) v Stratford Magistrates Court [2007] EWHC 1582 (Admin) — (1) The common law defence of insanity is available in the magistrates' court and prevents conviction (though does not necessarily lead to acquittal); (2) section 37(3) allows the magistrate, if satisfied that the accused did the act or made the omission charged, to abstain from convicting or acquitting or considering the issue of insanity, and instead to make a hospital or guardianship order.	2008‑02‑22 13:55:10	2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Johnson (Dean) [2007] EWCA Crim 1978 — The defendant knew his actions were legally wrong but did not believe them to be morally wrong: because he knew they were legally wrong he was not entitled under the M'Naghten Rules to ask the jury to enter a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity.	2008‑02‑22 13:47:23	2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R (Juncal) v SSHD [2007] EWHC 3024 (Admin) — (1) The common law principle of legality meant that subordinate legislation could not impose arbitrary detention without the authorisation of the enabling act. However, the Order in Council conferring a mandatory hospital order on those unfit to stand trial (without any investigation of the facts of the alleged offence) did not impose arbitrary detention: on the facts, medical evidence had been considered, and, in general, the court could postpone consideration of fitness to stand trial until after the prosecution case if it was likely that there was no case to answer. (2) The detention occurred before the coming into force of the HRA 1998 so any ECHR claim would necessarily fail.	2008‑02‑22 13:43:53	2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases
R v Chal [2007] EWCA Crim 2647 — Hearsay evidence admissible in s4A Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 proceedings	2007‑12‑27 21:48:39	2007 cases, Brief summary, Judgment available on Bailii, Transcript, Unfitness and insanity cases