Legal News

Court of Appeal admits fresh psychiatric evidence but does not accept it demonstrates lack of fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings (Ihenacho v Croydon London Borough Council)

Court of Appeal admits fresh psychiatric evidence but does not accept it demonstrates lack of fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings (Ihenacho v Croydon London Borough Council)
Published on: 11 June 2021
Published by: LexisPSL
  • Court of Appeal admits fresh psychiatric evidence but does not accept it demonstrates lack of fitness to plead in confiscation proceedings (Ihenacho v Croydon London Borough Council)
  • What are the practical implications of this case?
  • What was the background?
  • What did the court decide?
  • Case details

Article summary

Corporate Crime analysis: The court considered whether fresh evidence from forensic consultant psychiatrists should be admitted under section 23(1) of the Criminal Appeals Act 1968 (CAA 1968), and if so whether that evidence demonstrated that the appellant was unfit to plead when a confiscation order was made against her pursuant to the provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA 2002). Having regard to the matters set out in CAA 1968, s 23(2), the court decided to admit the psychiatric evidence, but considered that it did not show the appellant was unfit to plead at the time of the confiscation hearing. The appeal was dismissed. The case clarifies the application of the test for fitness to plead under R v Pritchard, and the proper approach for assessing evidence of fitness to plead when psychiatric evidence is not determinative of an individual’s condition at a specific time. Written by Neil Swift, partner at Peters & Peters. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents