A Podola Hearing – What is That?

Mental health continues to be an active challenge in our society and extends to the representation and trials of clients as well. When an attorney encounters an accused person who potentially has a mental health challenge, there are particular steps that will be followed. For the purposes of this article, the focus will be on criminal proceedings at the High Court.

Where the attorney concludes from their interaction with the client or has information that an accused may have a mental health challenge, same ought to be brought to the attention of the Judge at the earliest opportunity.

The Law

A Podola Hearing is one where the court determines whether an accused person is fit to stand trial. At the hearing, the accused’s fitness to plead of their capacity to comprehend and participate in the course of the criminal proceedings are tested.

The name Podola Hearing was derived from the UK case of R v Podola in 1960. In that case, it was a matter for the jury to determine on the evidence whether the accused person is insane.

The law was further developed in Trinidad and Tobago, by the Miscellaneous Provisions (Trial by Judge Alone), Act. No. 10 of 2017 (“the Act”) which provides for the judge to determine whether an accused person is insane or not and whether they are unfit to proceed to trial. The judge would be guided by the written or oral evidence of at least two (2) medical practitioners and the judge must give reasons for their decision at the end of the hearing.

While the Act stipulates that, the Judge must obtain evidence from at least two medical practitioners, the case law further requires that practitioners must detail their qualifications for the Court in order for them to be deemed a medical expert.

The Test

How do Judges determine whether the accused is insane or not? The case of Pritchard (1836) stated that judges ought to consider whether an accused should not be tried by reason of his mental condition. There are three key points to explore:

1. Whether the prisoner is mute of malice or not? The court has to determine whether the accused is intentionally refusing to speak or plead in court, as opposed to being unable to speak due to a physical or psychological condition.
2. Whether he can plead to the indictment or not? In other words, does the accused have the capacity to understand the nature of the charge and plead too same?
3. Whether he is of sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings of the trial? Each accused must be able to understand and follow their trial, therefore, it is critical for the Court to determine whether the accused has the capability to do so. Some key factors include the person’s ability to put forward a proper defence, to challenge any jurors, to understand the evidence and the details of the trial. Even though the Court is guided by the medical experts in arriving at its decision, and sometimes both medical experts may agree in their findings, the medical evidence is not the only evidence for the consideration of the Judge. The Court must carefully scrutinise all of the evidence before making a decision.

To Stay or not to Stay?

Where the Court has found that the Accused person is unfit to go to trial, what happens thereafter? The Judge must determine whether the matter should be stayed or not. In doing so, there are established guidance to assist the Court in making that determination. For example, the proceedings should only be stayed in exceptional cases where it will likely affect the fairness of the trial. Even if the accused was previously deemed unfit, it does not automatically preclude them from being tried for any subsequent criminal acts.  However, the Court should halt the proceedings if the accused was so severely impaired that he or she is unable to participate in the trial as proceeding with same can be seen as an abuse of process.

Once the matter is stayed, it does not mean that the accused is automatically released. It is important to note, that the Court, may go on to consider whether the accused did the acts alleged if it would serve any useful purpose. The court can detain the person at a mental health institution at the Court’s pleasure for periodic review.

Conclusion

It is a basic principle of our criminal law that a person should be held liable only where he is of sufficient capacity to be blameworthy for his actions. The aim of the law in this area and the Podola Hearing is to balance the rights of the vulnerable who cannot fairly be tried, with the interests of those affected by the alleged offence and the need to protect the public.