Leicester Crown Court is currently involved in a hearing to determine whether Daniel Rounce killed Gerald Wickes. This is not a trial to determine guilt, it is a trial of the facts. Mr Rounce has been deemed unfit to stand trial because of his mental health and for a range of reasons set out in another post on this topic, the court are now asking a jury to determine whether he “did the act” alleged, that he stabbed Mr Wickes in his own home after entering without permission.
This is nothing to do with determining guilty – defendants who are deemed unfit to plead to the charge they face, cannot be found guilty OR not guilty. You might therefore wonder why the person is not just considered legally insane and hospitalised accordingly? It’s a fair question. Insanity is about someone’s mental health at the time of the alleged offence; unfitness to plead is about the defendant’s mental health at the time of the court hearing. It is for that reason there could be a prosecution involving a trial where someone is fit to plead and instruct their legal counsel, but they are then found insane because of evidence around their health at the time of the incident. Conversely, someone’s mental health may have deteriorated by the time of their trial, without any suggestion of mental health difficulties at the time of the incident. This might be the case for example, where there is a prosecution for a historic offence and the defendant is elderly, affected by dementia at the time of the trial many years later.
The trial of the facts is about making an assessment of “whether the person did the thing” they are accused of, without reference to guilty or not guilty – you might wonder the point of this, if they are to end up being hospitalised in any event? Well, the purpose is, in effect, to determine which part of the Mental Health Act will govern that hospitalisation: Part II or Part III?
PART THREE PROVISION
Many people will be familiar with the Part II Mental Health Act provisions. Things like section 2, section 3 and section 4 of the MHA which all related to someone being ‘sectioned’ by an Approved Mental Health Professional and one or two doctors, where detention is predicated on health, risk and treatment and where discharge from hospital is governed by those things, also. Part III of the MHA, by contrast, are the ‘criminal’ provisions of the Act: those mechanisms by which criminal courts make direct detention and decisions about someone’s mental health, whether that be for assessment, detention pending trial or admission after findings of guilty, insanity or unfitness to plead. The purpose of Part III provisions is broader than health, risk and treatment – it is also expressly about protection of the public from serious harms for those few mental health patients who could fairly be described as ‘dangerous’ or posing a ‘serious risk to the public.
So in a case such as this, the defendant may or may not be the correct person for the suspect in the killing – the police may have arrested the wrong person, albeit in circumstances where there is at least some evidence against them, because the Crown Prosecution Service has authorised they be charged with murder. If however, a particular defendant didn’t actually commit the offence alleged, it would be grossly unfair to find them detained under a Part III order for the protection of the public when they hadn’t done anything to justify it. Equally, if a defendant has committed the act alleged, then notwithstanding they are ill, it’s imperative the state takes steps available under the MHA to protect the public.
The trial of the facts is the forum where a jury decides whether detention under Part III provisions is necessary, by determining whether they “did the thing”. Bizarrely enough, if it were found Mr Rounce killed Mr Wickes, he would most likely be subject to a restricted hospital order under sections 37 and 41 of the MHA. This is also what would result if he had been found legally insane.
A tragic event, regardless of what happens from here – I can only imagine the pain Mr Wilkes family are going through.
Winner of the President’s Medal,
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2023
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 