Determination of Competency to Stand Trial (Fitness to Plead): An Exploratory Study in Hong Kong

Abstract

Competency to stand trial (CST) is related to the defendant's capacity to engage in a satisfactory level of participation in the court process. While the extant studies focus mainly on assessment-related issues such as assessment methods, guidelines for competency evaluations, and quality of competency evaluations, another area of considerable interest is the indicators of CST as well as legal decision-making relating to CST. This study canvasses some proposed indicators of CST from the literature and examines whether these psycholegal abilities are relevant to finding a defendant incompetent to stand trial. Secondly, the study investigates factors likely to influence legal decision-making in competency determination. Using a cross-sectional survey and a self-report methodology, 197 participants from a legal Juris Doctoral course responded to measures of CST, punitiveness, and legal authoritarianism, anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism. The results show that the majority of the items canvassed from the literature are considered relevant in finding the defendant incompetent to stand trial. With respect to factors influencing competent decisionmaking, females are more likely to regard defendants as incompetent. Additionally, participants with strong punishment-oriented attitudes (i.e. legal authoritarianism and punitiveness) are significantly more likely to find the defendant competent to stand trial, as opposed to those high in non-punishment-oriented attitudes (i.e. anti-authoritarianism and egalitarianism). The study concludes that biased legal decision-making can occur regardless of the background of the decision-makers, in this case participants undergoing legal training. The findings are discussed and implications of the study are proposed.

Competency to stand trial evaluations in Africa

“…Despite differences in the wording of CST legislations, it is interesting to note similarity in the CST indicators across jurisdictions. As can be seen in Table 1, the discrete court-related functions that are indicative of CST are evident in the CST legislations or standards in England and Wales, United States, Australia and Hong Kong (Adjorlolo & Chan, 2017). Act, 1960 (Act, 30;henceforth Act 30) which states that "Where in the course of a trial or preliminary proceedings the Court has the reason to believe that the accused is of unsound mind and consequently incapable of making a defence, it shall enquire into the fact of such unsoundness by causing the accused to be medically examined and shall after the examination take medical and any other available evidence regarding the state of the accused's mind" (see Adjorlolo, Chan, & Agboli, 2016, p.2).…”

“…It is frequently and substantially raised more often than the insanity defence, with available data suggesting that about 60,000 adjudicative competence evaluations are requested in the United States annually, costing an estimated annual expenditure of $300 million (Zapf, Roesch & Pirelli, 2014). Derived from old English common law, CST is one of the procedural requirements for upholding and maintaining due process rights, judicial sanctity and procedural fairness (Adjorlolo & Chan, 2017). Fundamentally, the posture of the law across jurisdictions is that no one should be tried when they cannot contribute meaningfully and satisfactorily to the criminal adjudication process.…”