The Pritchard criteria relate to whether a defendant should be considered fit to plead. They form a legal test of fitness to plead. People are always assumed to have capacity, so people are considered fit to plead unless they fail to meet the Pritchard Criteria. If they are unable to meet the requirements of any of the parts (often known as the “limbs”) of the criteria/test then they may be found unfit to plead by the Judge.
What are the Pritchard Criteria?
- Understanding the charge(s)
- Entering a plea
- Challenging any jurors to whom they may object
- To give proper instructions to their legal representatives
- Following the proceedings so as to make a proper defence
- Give evidence
In common with other forms of capacity, people are presumed to have capacity – i.e. to be fit to plead and to fulfil the Pritchard Criteria, unless found otherwise.
If the question of fitness to plead is raised, then expert evidence is needed to assess the defendant’s fitness to plead, according to the criteria. This is most often done by a psychiatrist. The defence, prosecution and the Judge can instruct experts to assess fitness to plead.
After expert evidence is produced the Judge makes the decision about whether the defendant is fit to plead or not.
If experts disagree then the Judge can arrange a contested fitness to plead hearing, when experts can be examined and a decision reached by the Judge.
The question of fitness to plead is usually raised by the defence. When the defence raise it, this must be proved on the balance of probabilities (the civil burden of proof).
If the question of fitness to plead is raised by the prosecution then it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal burden of proof).
The history of the Pritchard Criteria
The Pritchard criteria were established in a case dating back to 1836, R v Pritchard. The Judge in the case was Edward Hall Alderson. He is cited as Alderman B. in reference to his honorary title of Baron.
R v Pritchard
Pritchard was a deaf man who could not talk. He was accused of bestiality, which could result in the death sentence if convicted. The Court regarded him as “mute” and set out to determine if he was “mute by malice” (suggesting he was refusing to talk) or “mute by visitation of God” (meaning that the muteness was beyond his control). He was found to be “mute by visitation”.
The jury was then set the task of determining whether Pritchard could plead. They found that he could, and he indicated that he pleaded not guilty. This raised the question of whether it was appropriate for him to be allowed to enter the plea.
The original form of the Pritchard Criteria
Alderson then directed the jury to consider whether the prisoner had sufficient intellect to comprehend the course of the proceedings, so as to make a proper defence, to challenge any juror he might wish to object to and to comprehend the details of the evidence.
There was no concern with instructing counsel because access to legal advice was not routinely available until almost 20 years later. The case of Davies (1853) saw the introduction of the additional criterion about properly instructing counsel.
The question of fitness to plead is usually raised by the defence. When the defence raise it, this must be proved on the balance of probabilities (the civil burden of proof).
If the question of fitness to plead is raised by the prosecution then it must be proved beyond reasonable doubt (the criminal burden of proof).