Introduction

The case of Ross Patrick vs. Her Majesty's Advocate ([2021] HCJAC 37) presents a significant examination of the application of Section 56 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The central issue revolves around whether the court can lawfully desert an indictment pro loco et tempore after a determination of the accused's unfitness for trial due to a learning disability. This commentary delves into the background of the case, the parties involved, the key legal issues, and the broader implications of the court's decision.

Summary of the Judgment

The complainer, Ross Patrick, was initially found unfit to stand trial by Lord Boyd on June 14, 2019, due to a mental impairment related to a mild learning disability. Despite this finding, the Crown sought to desert the indictment under Section 56(5) pro loco et tempore, aiming to re-indict Patrick with a preliminary hearing scheduled for November 4, 2019. Lord Beckett, presiding over the desertion motion, relied on new psychiatric reports that contradicted the earlier determination of unfitness. The complainer appealed this decision, arguing that the desertion circumvented the prior finding without a genuine change in circumstances. Ultimately, the High Court of Justiciary refused the Bill of Advocation, thereby upholding Lord Beckett's decision to desert the indictment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents to support its conclusions. Notably, Stewart v HM Advocate (No 2) 1997 JC 217 was discussed, illustrating that an accused can submit a plea of insanity in bar of trial even after an unsuccessful attempt in a previous indictment. Additionally, the court referenced Parracho v HM Advocate 2011 SLT 600 and Renton & Brown Criminal Procedure to emphasize that desertion pro loco et tempore should be reserved for exceptional circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning centered on interpreting the scope and applicability of Section 56(5) of the 1995 Act, which grants the court the discretion to desert an examination of facts pro loco et tempore at any stage during the proceedings. Lord Beckett justified the desertion by highlighting the emergence of new psychiatric evaluations indicating fitness for trial, despite the earlier determination. The appellant contended that there was no genuine change in circumstances, making the desertion procedurally unfair. However, the court upheld that Section 56(5) permits such desertion even after a prior finding, provided new evidence justifies reconsideration.

Impact

This judgment underscores the judiciary's commitment to ensuring that legal proceedings are fair and just, allowing for flexibility in cases where new evidence emerges. It clarifies that Section 56(5) can be invoked to desert an indictment even after a finding of unfitness for trial, provided there is substantiated evidence to reassess the accused's capacity. This decision may influence future cases where there is a need to re-evaluate an accused's fitness for trial, ensuring that prior determinations do not irrevocably hinder the pursuit of justice when legitimate grounds for reconsideration arise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Desertion Pro Loco Et Tempore

Desertion pro loco et tempore is a legal procedure that allows the prosecution to halt an indictment temporarily, with the intention of re-issuing it at a later date. This mechanism provides flexibility in criminal proceedings, enabling adjustments based on new evidence or changing circumstances.

Section 56 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995

Section 56 grants courts the authority to desert an examination of facts pro loco et tempore. Specifically, Section 56(5) allows for such desertion "at any time" during the proceedings, based on the prosecutor's motion and subsequent hearing of the accused.

Examination of Facts

The examination of facts is a phase in Scottish criminal proceedings akin to a trial, where evidence is presented, and the court determines the guilt or innocence of the accused. It concludes when the court acquits, makes an order under Section 57(2), or decides not to make an order.

Fitness to Stand Trial

Fitness to stand trial refers to an accused person's mental and cognitive capacity to understand the proceedings and participate effectively in their defense. A finding of unfitness can halt proceedings until the individual is deemed fit.

Conclusion

The High Court of Justiciary's decision in Ross Patrick v Her Majesty's Advocate reinforces the judiciary's authority under Section 56(5) to desert an examination of facts pro loco et tempore even after a prior determination of unfitness for trial. This judgment highlights the balance courts must maintain between finality in legal proceedings and the necessity to adapt to new evidence ensuring justice is served. By upholding Lord Beckett's decision, the court affirmed that procedural mechanisms exist to reassess and proceed with indictments when justified, thereby safeguarding the integrity and flexibility of the criminal justice system.