View source for 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."

==ICLR==
{{ICLR|R v Orr (2016) EWCA Crim 889, (2016) MHLO 21}}

==External link==
{{#bailii:(2016) EWCA Crim 889}}

[http://cases.iclr.co.uk/Subscr/search.aspx?docID=WLRD2016-378 ICLR]

[[Media:R v Orr (2016) EWCA Crim 889, (2016) MHLO 21.pdf|Transcript]]

<span class="plainlinks">[http://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/media/archive/20160709214851%21R_v_Orr_%282016%29_EWCA_Crim_889%2C_%282016%29_MHLO_21.pdf Transcript]. This is a larger file (2613kb, rather than 387kb) but one from which you can copy and paste text.

[[Category:Unfitness and insanity cases‎]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2016 cases]]