<i>Presser</i> – the forgotten story

Kasinathan, John; Le, Joey; Barker, Anthony T.; Sharp, Gillian

doi:10.1177/1039856216646230

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fitness to be tried for serious offences is based on caselaw, with the lead case being Presser. 6 Some states have codified the criteria set out in this case. The insanity defense exists under different names for serious offences, and follows M'Naghten's case.…”

Section: Forensic Psychiatry In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychiatry and mental health in Australia: an overview

Ellis

2019

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article reviews the development of forensic psychiatry and mental health services in Australia for the international reader. It covers the legacy of a series of colonial systems that have contributed to a modern health service that interacts with justice systems. The development of relevant legislation, hospitals, prison services, community, and courts services is reviewed. The training and academic development of professionals is covered. Gaps in service delivery and future directions are considered.

show abstract

Section: Forensic Psychiatry In Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Forensic psychiatry and mental health in Australia: an overview

Ellis

2019

CNS Spectr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is not usually appreciated that the defendant in R v Presser was actually a 14year-old boy who had an intellectual disability and that during his trial for the murder of his four-and-half-year-old friend, the jury heard medical evidence that Presser had a 'mental age' of a nine-year-old 1 . On 12 September 1957, following the directions of Smith J, a jury found Presser fit to be tried.…”

Section: R V Pressermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Reasonable doubt person committed offence (1) The Mental Health Court must not make a decision under section 267 (1) if the court is satisfied there is reasonable doubt the person committed the alleged offence (the disputed offence) (2) However, the court may make a decision under section 267 (1) if the doubt the person committed the disputed offence exists only as a consequence of the person's mental condition.…”

Section: Legislative Framework In Queenslandmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…s 270 When Mental Health Court must decide fitness for trial (1) The Mental Health Court must decide whether the person is fit for trial ifa. the court decides the person was not of unsound mind; or b. under section 268 or 269, the court must not decide whether the person was of unsound mind when the alleged offence was committed.…”

Section: Legislative Framework In Queenslandmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fitness for Trial and the Self-represented Defendant

Scott

2017

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because the state has a specialised Mental Health Court, in which the presiding Supreme Court judge is assisted by two psychiatrists, and 'fitness for trial' had a statutory definition in the Mental Health Act 2000, the Queensland jurisdiction has developed an extensive jurisprudence in relation to determinations of 'fitness for trial'.In 2012, the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Mental Health Court that an appellant was fit for trial. After the Mental Health Court made a second determination in 2014, the appellant argued that since he was without legal representation and the statutory definition of 'fitness for trial' included a 'fit to instruct counsel' criterion, the previous assessments as to fitness for trial were irrelevant. In the subsequent decision in Berg v Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) [2015] QCA 196, the Court of Appeal considered the statutory interpretation of the relevant provisions and the common law concepts of 'fitness to plead' and 'fitness for trial' particularly in the context of a self-represented defendant. The decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal decision effectively removes the safeguard that the accused should, in most circumstances, have legal representation in a criminal trial.

show abstract

“…The Presser criteria were established in the Australian court decision of R v. Presser to help ascertain whether the defendant was FST. In this landmark case, the defendant had cognitive and intellectual impairments that were not considered within the scope of Australia's previous legislation (Kasinathan, Le, Barker, & Sharp, 2016). The United States mandates the Dusky Standard or the requirement for defendants to possess factual and rational understanding, and the ability to consult with his or her lawyer.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of the Presser and legislative criteria on classifying New Zealand’s fitness to stand trial court outcomes

Buchwald-Mackintosh

Williams

Sakdalan

2019

Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

New Zealand's legislation mandates the inclusion of several legislative criteria to assist in the determination of defendants' fitness to stand trial (FTST). However, the unlegislated Presser criteria have been described as useful to discriminate between defendants' fitness without formal research to identify them as such. The sample consisted of 252 defendants' FTST forensic assessments between 2005 and 2015 with a mean age of 30.1 years, where 87.7% were male. Defendants were primarily from M aori descent (37.3%), New Zealand European (34.1%) and Pacific Island descent (17.9%). The authors found that all Presser and legislative criteria significantly predicted whether the defendant was fit to stand trial (FST). Both the Presser and legislative criteria have excellent area under the curve (AUC) statistics. However, the Presser criteria, compared to the legislative criteria, improved specificity of court judgements. The Presser criteria may therefore assist in correct FTST court decisions, particularly for borderline-fit defendants.

show abstract

Presser – the forgotten story

Abstract: The Presser criteria are widely applied; however, the case involved a 14-year-old boy with intellectual disability. Greater awareness of Presser's narrative assists clinicians providing expert evidence regarding fitness to plead for adolescents and persons with intellectual disability.

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Forensic psychiatry and mental health in Australia: an overview

Forensic psychiatry and mental health in Australia: an overview

Fitness for Trial and the Self-represented Defendant

Effects of the Presser and legislative criteria on classifying New Zealand’s fitness to stand trial court outcomes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About