Objective: This paper provides a conceptual, historical and legislative overview of fitness issues. These include fitness to be interrogated or charged, to plead, to be tried and to be sentenced in the context of Australia and New Zealand.
Conclusions: Legislation regarding fitness issues needs to strike a balance between protecting the rights of mentally impaired defendants to a fair trial process and recognizing that mental illness in itself does not absolutely preclude participation in a trial process or necessarily diminish criminal responsibility. Although the key determinants of fitness seem to be the ability to cope with court processes and communicate with counsel, the application of clinical judgement to legal criteria is not always straightforward.
ZapfPRoeshRViljoenJ. Assessing fitness to stand trial: the utility of the fitness interview test (revised edition). Canadian Journal of Psychiatry2001; 46: 426–432.
2.
MullenP. Commentary: competence assessment practices in England and Australia verus the United States. The Journal of The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law2002; 30: 486–487.
MeltonGB, PetrilaJ, PoythressNG. Competency to stand trial. In: MeltonGB, PetrilaJ, PoythressNG. Psychological Evaluations for the Courts. A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers, 2nd edn. New York: Guilford Press, 1997; 124; 119–155.
5.
GrissoT. Clinical Evaluations for Juveniles’ Competence to Stand Trial: A Guide for Legal Professionals. Sarasota: Florida Professional Resource Exchange, 2005.
6.
MullenP. Commentary: competence assessment practices in England and Australia versus the United States. The Journal of The American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law2002; 30: 486–487.
7.
v PodolaR(1960)43 Cr App R 220.
8.
R v Drummond NSW CCA27May, 1994.
9.
R v Dennison NSW CCA3March, 1998.
10.
HowardDWestmoreB. Fitness to stand trial. Crime and the Mental Health Law in New South Wales, HowardDWestmoreB. Lexisnexis Butterworth, Sydney2005; 90–142.
11.
RosenfieldBRitchieK. Competence to stand trial: clinician reliability and the role of offence severity. Journal Forensic Science1998; 43: 151–157.
12.
GrubinD. Fitness to Plead in England and Wales. Maudsley Monograph 38. Hove: Psychology Press, 1996.
13.
Proceedings in the Case of John Frith for High Treason(1790)22 Howell's State Trials 307 at 318.
14.
R v Pritchard, Carrington & Payne 303, 1836.
15.
Dusky v US 363 US 402, 1960.
16.
v PresserR(1958)VR 45 at 48.
17.
v KesavarajahR(1994)181 CLR 230.
18.
Eastman v The Queen (2000) HCA 29.
19.
The Queen v B (CA 238/02) NZCA 241, 2 September 2002.
20.
v PowerR(CA 187/96) NZCA, 22 October 1996.
21.
Tarasoff v Regents University of California Supreme Court of California, 1976.
22.
Anti-Terrorism Bill(No. 2) 2005, Bill No 05175, Parliament of Australia.
23.
JanofskyJS. Lies and coercion: Why psychiatrists should not participate in police and intelligence interrogations. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law2006; 34: 472–478.
24.
DPP v Rivkin(2004).
25.
AkinkunmiA. The MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool – fitness to plead: a preliminary evaluation of a research instrument for assessing fitness to plead in England and Wales. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law2002; 30: 476–482.
26.
ViljoenJLRoeschRZapfP. Interrater reliability of the Fitness Interview Test across four professional groups. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry2002; 47: 945–952.
