Walls, R v

Walls, R v

The appellant was not unfit to plead at trial under the Pritchard criteria, as contemporaneous evidence showed he understood the proceedings and could instruct counsel; psychiatric evidence presented on appeal was insufficient to displace this finding.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Robert Walls
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfitness to Plead, Pritchard Criteria, Sexual Assault on a Child, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Criminal Law Mental Health Law Unfitness to Plead Pritchard Criteria Sexual Assault on a Child Fresh Evidence on Appeal

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Robert Walls

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fresh psychiatric evidence should be admitted on appeal to show the appellant was unfit to plead at trial
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's low IQ and learning disability met the Pritchard criteria for unfitness to plead

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not unfit to plead at trial under the Pritchard criteria, as contemporaneous evidence showed he understood the proceedings and could instruct counsel; psychiatric evidence presented on appeal was insufficient to displace this finding.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed