0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

when the accused can't stand trial?

7 February 2019

This article is taken from February's public matters newsletter. Click here to view more articles from this issue.


What happens when an accused cannot stand trial in criminal investigations? There are many situations whereby after a criminal investigation has started, an accused individual can no longer stand trial. For example, that person may pass away, may fall ill or may simply lack the capacity to be able to stand trial.

Many of these criminal matters can be linked to corresponding civil claims and it is important that prospective defendants and insurers alike are aware of the consequences that this may have on proof of allegations.

The most common examples of these situations are often in historical abuse allegations. By the nature of those cases, those who are accused can often be frail or elderly but this is a situation which can arise in any criminal matter. For example, you may have an employee being investigated for gross negligence manslaughter.

An individual has the right to a fair trial and on that basis, a guilty verdict and conviction cannot be held against them in the absence of their evidence. However, the court can elect to hear a trial of facts.

A trial of facts has, generally speaking, been a relatively unusual course of action but the most high profile case in which it has been tabled was in respect of the allegations of abuse tendered against Lord Greville Janner. That trial did not ultimately go ahead but was proposed on the basis of his advanced dementia.

Recently it was reported that a former youth football coach accused of sexual abuse died on the day that his trial was due to start. Given the evidence that had already been gathered to take this matter to trial, those involved must surely now be thinking of a trial of facts.

What is the outcome of a trial of facts?

Generally speaking, at a trial of facts, the jury will have to decide whether the individual alleged of criminal wrongdoing is either:

  • not guilty, or
  • did the acts alleged.

This is very different to a guilty verdict and an individual who is found to have done the acts alleged will not be sentenced to prison. The options that would be open to a judge would include:

  • If there is sufficient medical evidence to detain the individual on the grounds of a mental disorder, a hospital order for admission to hospital can be made.
  • A restriction order could be made to then prevent the discharge, transfer or leave of absence of the individual from that hospital without the Secretary of State’s agreement.
  • A supervision order could be made which would require the individual be monitored by a social worker or probation worker for a period of up to two years. Such an order may include a requirement to submit to treatment.
  • An absolute discharge.

If the health of an individual improves in the meantime, a judge can arrange for them to be arraigned and to stand trial.

How should we treat a trial of facts in a related civil claim?

In practical terms it is our experience that if someone has been found to have ‘done the acts alleged’ in a trial of facts, this will be as persuasive as a guilty verdict when it comes to considering a civil claim.

The simple reason for this is the different standards of the burden of proof in civil and criminal matters. If a jury was satisfied, beyond reasonable doubt, that someone has committed the acts alleged regardless of their evidence, it would be an unlikely case where those acts would not be proven under the civil standard of balance of probabilities.

Receive our latest public sector news

Choose the way you want to keep up to date with our latest updates and insights. Sign up to our monthly newsletter or join the conversation with our team on LinkedIn.

Sign up to receive updates >

Follow our LinkedIn showcase page >

<>

training and events

6Mar

Social care forum Manchester office

We are all waiting with bated breath for the Supreme Court decision in CN & GN, a case which will have a huge practical impact on service providers.

View event

focus on...

Legal updates

W&I insurance and sell-side due diligence

The purpose of this note is to highlight the difficulties with vendor due diligence (VDD) in the context of W&I insurance.

View

Legal updates

Various Claimants v Giambrone and Law and Others Defendants and AIG Europe Limited 2019

On 11 January 2019 Mr Justice Foskett provided his judgment in respect of an application for non-party costs pursuant to section 51 of the Senior Courts Act 1981 against AIG.

View

Legal updates

The scope of litigation privilege and ‘purely commercial discussions’

‘Purely commercial discussions’ within an organisation regarding settlement of a dispute prior to litigation are not protected by litigation privilege.

View

Legal updates

Disclosure rule changes - are you ready?

From 1 January 2019 there will be a two year pilot practice direction relating to disclosure in operation in the Business and Property Courts.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up



Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up