The Pritchard criteria are a means of assessing fitness to plead, and consider communication and cognition to ensure defendants with mental disorders are not subjected unfairly to criminal trials.
The Pritchard criteria were developed from a nineteenth century case (R v Pritchard (1836)) whereby the defendant, accused of bestiality, was deaf and mute. The criteria were set by judge Alderson B to determine if the defendant was fit to plead.
The Pritchard criteria have been reframed and expanded in subsequent cases. The accused will be found unfit to plead if they are not able:
- To comprehend the course of proceedings of the trial, so as to make a proper defence,
- To understand the evidence involved in the case,
- To instruct their legal representatives, or,
- To challenge a juror to whom they may object.
If one or more of these criteria are not satisfied, a conventional trial should not proceed, and defendants are usually diverted from a criminal trial for treatment in psychiatric services. The decision can be made by a judge, on the basis of psychiatric assessment.
There have been some criticisms of the Pritchard criteria, mainly that the threshold for being unfit to plead is too high, and that there is no standardised way of assessing the criteria.
Assessment of Fitness to Plead is one of the most common requests made of Forensic Psychiatrists.
Anna Burns