The defendant, Rodney Silva, faces two counts of burglary. The defence raised the issue of Silva's fitness to plead and stand trial based on reports from two psychologists indicating significant cognitive impairments. The Crown disputed this, presenting an opposing psychiatric report.
The defence relied on two reports: Psychologist Tonya Greaves concluded that Silva had undiagnosed cognitive impairments requiring further testing, while Clinical Psychologist Dr. Anya Malcolm found Silva severely intellectually disabled, unable to understand legal proceedings or instruct counsel. The Crown presented Dr. Delia Deoagnes Monier Herrera's report diagnosing Silva with Antisocial Personality Disorder and initially deeming him fit to stand trial, though she later revised her opinion after subsequent observations, suspecting an intellectual disability that required further psychological testing.
Held: The court ruled that Silva is unfit to plead or stand trial due to his severe cognitive impairments and ordered the proceedings to be stayed, hoping that Silva receives effective familial and medical support in the future.
The court referenced the legal test for fitness to plead from the case of Pritchard (1836) 7 C&P 303, which requires sufficient understanding to make a proper defence; see also Podola [1960] 1 QB 325; R v M [2003] EWCA Crim 3452 and Taitt v State of Trinidad and Tobago [2012] 1 WLR 3730. To determine Silva’s fitness the court considered his ability to understand the charges, plead, challenge jurors, instruct counsel, and comprehend proceedings.
Both defence psychologists, Greaves and Malcolm, provided evidence supporting claims of Silva's cognitive impairments. Greaves’s assessment indicated challenges in memory and executive functions, while Malcolm’s testing suggested Silva operated at a cognitive level of a six-year-old, unable to understand legal processes or participate meaningfully in his defence. Initially contesting this, the Crown’s expert, Herrera, adjusted her stance at the hearing, agreeing that Silva likely had significant cognitive deficits.
The court, considering the extensive evaluations, concluded that Silva:
- Is unable to properly understand the charges
- Is unable to properly understand the ramifications of pleading guilty
- Is not able to challenge jurors
- Is not able to properly instruct counsel
- Is not able to fully comprehend proceedings
The court decided to stay the proceedings against Silva, guided by the principles from the case of DPP v P [2008] 1 WLR 1005, considering the exceptional nature of Silva's cognitive condition, which was found to be chronic and unchangeable. Further, given the time Silva had already spent in custody and the less severe nature of the charges, the court found no purpose in continuing the trial.