The Court of Appeal has overturned a Circuit Court finding that Robert Harrison was unfit to be tried on a charge of dangerous driving causing death and serious bodily injury. It directed that the case be re-entered before the next sitting of Cavan Circuit Criminal Court, with a view to progressing to trial as soon as possible.
The charge concerns a crash at Corrahavan, Drung, Cootehill, County Cavan, on 3 November 2009. The prosecution alleges that the driving caused Nicola Roberts’s death and serious injuries to Vera Fannin. The judgment records that Harrison was also injured in that crash. He had suffered a severe head injury in an earlier road traffic accident in January 2009 and had been in a coma for about two months.
At a fitness hearing in July 2014, the Circuit Court judge found Harrison unfit to be tried. The judge accepted evidence from consultant psychiatrist Dr Stephen Monks that Harrison had a mental disability and cognitive difficulties, but also that he was fit under the statutory criteria. Dr Monks considered that memory difficulties might create challenges in court and suggested summaries, recaps and other reasonable accommodations. Consultant psychiatrist Dr Alan Byrne considered Harrison unfit, citing difficulties understanding the case and instructing his lawyers.
The Court of Appeal held that the Circuit Court’s unfitness ruling was against the weight of the evidence it had accepted. It said the judge had also prematurely treated the question of possible trial accommodations as a reason to find Harrison unfit. Fitness under the statutory criteria and whether a fair trial could be achieved with practical assistance were separate questions that had to be considered distinctly.
The appeal court said possible measures should be explored rigorously, ideally at a pre-trial directions hearing, with specific needs identified and appropriate arrangements planned. It gave examples including breaks, extra time to process information, simpler explanations of complex matters and transcripts of critical evidence. Any measures should be reasonably practical, strictly necessary and should not unfairly advantage the accused over the prosecution.
The court stressed that it was expressing no view on whether a fair trial would in fact be possible. The trial judge must keep fairness under review and stop proceedings if a fair trial cannot be achieved, even with reasonable accommodations. If fresh doubts arise about Harrison’s fitness during the proceedings, a further fitness hearing may be held. The appeal was allowed; the judgment did not determine the underlying charge or its eventual outcome.