Knowledge and Opinions of Fitness to Stand Trial Elements in Australia

Abstract

Fitness to stand trial (equivalent to competency to stand trial) requires that defendants have a basic understanding of the purpose of the trial and the trial procedures. Little is known, however, about what constitutes a basic factual understanding of the matters. This study developed a legal knowledge survey in which participants were asked to define legal concepts and respond to legal scenarios. They then rated the importance of each component of the fitness to stand trial test to achieving a fair trial. Participants (N = 393; females 69.7%) aged between 18 and 66-years (M = 31.26-years, SD = 11.48-years) from each Australian state and territory completed the online survey. Legal knowledge was high (86.5% correct) and there was no difference between participants on any clinical (e.g., current or past mental illness, neurological conditions), criminological (e.g., criminal history), or demographic variable (e.g., gender, employment, education), except age (curvilinear R² = .12). Participants under 30-years old used significantly more Americanisms on difficult items compared with participants over 30-years old. On average, participants rated almost every component of the legal test as “extremely important” to a fair trial. The legal knowledge survey had good psychometric properties (Cronbach’s α = .86, interrater reliability ĸ > .80 on most variables, single solution factor analysis). Overall, the results support the presumption underpinning the Australian test for fitness, which is that people possess a basic factual understanding of a trial and trial procedures. Further research should focus on testing knowledge in special populations (e.g., mental illness, dementia, intellectual disability).

Keywords:

• Fitness to stand trial
• competency to stand trial
• medico-legal
• psycho-legal Presser

Conflict of interest

There are no conflicts of interest to declare. Psychological Assessment Resources Incorporated provided permission for two ECST-R items to be used in this study.

Notes

1 For example, in Victoria, once defendants are found unfit and it is determined that their fitness will not be restored within 12 months, the court conducts a ‘special hearing.’ The special hearing is operated as close to possible as a normal trial, except that the defendant cannot meaningfully participate or instruct counsel. The purpose of the special hearing is to determine if there is enough evidence to determine that the defendant is not guilty, not guilty by reason of mental impairment (equivalent to not guilty by reason of insanity), that they committed the offense. If the special hearing decided either of the first two outcomes, the defendant is released from custody. If the finding is that the defendant committed the offense, a finding of guilt is not recorded, and the disposition of the defendant is subject to a custodial or non-custodial supervision order until such time as they are no longer a risk of endangerment to the community (Part III, Crimes Mental Impairment (Unfitness to be Tried) Act, 1997, Victoria).