Surely the business of unfit to stand trial proceeds thus. The prosecution say the defendant is fit to stand trial and have experts lined up to confirm it. The defence say no, he is not fit to stand trial, and have experts lined up to confirm it. They then slug it out in front of the judge for the judge to decide whether or not the defendant is fit to stand trial.
Where the prosecution has the defendant examined by two or more experts, both of whom confirm that he is unfit to stand trial, how are they going to resist what will inevitably be a similar application on behalf of the defence?
The answer is the prosecution throw in the towel straightaway, thereby saving legal time, costs and expense to the taxpayer.
I rest my case.
Incidentally, one of the allegations in the Janner case apparently goes back to 1969. I wonder how many of those now baying for the blood of the director of public prosecutions would like to be charged with an offence going back 46 years, of which they would probably have no recollection whatsoever?
Richard Crumly, solicitor, Thatcham, Berkshire
