R v Ghulam – WLR Daily

R v Ghulam; [2009] WLR (D) 303

“The word ‘determination’ in s 4(6) of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 refers only to a determination that a defendant is unfit to plead so that, where that provision’s requirement for evidence from two or more registered medical practitioners to be before the court has not been met, the trial judge is not bound to adjourn the trial but may properly conclude that the defendant is fit to plead and that the trial may continue.”

WLR Daily, 22nd October 2009

Source: www.lawreports.co.uk

Please note once a case has been reported in one of the ICLR series the corresponding WLR Daily summary is removed.

0 Responses to “R v Ghulam – WLR Daily”



  1. Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s




October 2009
M T W T F S S
« Sep   Nov »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

Categories


%d bloggers like this: