View source for 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'.

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2012) EWCA Crim 1799|no}}

[[Media:R v B (2012) EWCA Crim 1799, (2012) MHLO 119.pdf|Transcript]]

[[Category:Unfitness and insanity cases‎]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2012 cases]]