Key Facts
- •Kamaladin Ismael (appellant) pleaded guilty to 12 offences at a plea and trial preparation hearing (PTPH) in April 2020.
- •Subsequent events raised serious concerns about Ismael's fitness to plead at the time of his guilty pleas.
- •Multiple psychiatric reports indicated Ismael was unfit to plead due to Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and significant cognitive impairments.
- •Ismael's cognitive abilities were assessed as equivalent to a seven-year-old child.
- •The case was plagued by delays and procedural issues, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
- •The defence lawyers failed to adequately address Ismael's fitness to plead in a timely manner.
Legal Principles
Test for unfitness to plead (Pritchard test)
Pritchard (1836) 7 Car. & P. 303; R v Podola (1959) 43 Cr.App R 220; R v John (M) [2003] EWCA Crim 3452
Importance of contemporaneous assessment of fitness to plead and the role of legal representatives
R v Erskine; R v Williams [2009] EWCA Crim 1425
Application of Section 6 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968
Criminal Appeal Act 1968, Section 6
Hospital orders under Mental Health Act 1983 and Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964
Mental Health Act 1983, Section 37; Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, Section 5(2)(a)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed.
Ismael was unfit to plead at the time he entered his guilty pleas, rendering the convictions unsafe.
No retrial ordered.
A retrial is not in the public interest given Ismael's unfitness to plead and the likelihood of a similar outcome.
Ismael remains subject to the existing hospital order.
The hospital order was made under the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964.