Fitness to stand trial in one Australian jurisdiction: the role of cognitive abilities, neurological dysfunction and psychiatric disorders

Amanda Jane White, Jennifer Batchelor, Susanne Meares, Susan Pulman, Dan Howard

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

In Australia, limited research of the factors determining fitness to stand trial (FST) has been conducted. In particular, the relevance of cognitive abilities and neurological dysfunction in accordance with the legal standard of R v. Presser (1958) has not been comprehensively explored. In the largest known sample of court-determined FST cases in Australia examined to date, expert reports for 153 unfit and 91 fit defendants in New South Wales (NSW) over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Data related to cognitive assessment, psychiatric disorders, neurological dysfunction, demographic factors and expert opinion were extracted. The results showed that cognitive abilities, in particular verbal memory, nonverbal skills, and executive functioning, were influential in differentiating between fit and unfit groups and determining FST. However, quantitative analysis was limited as few reports contained test scores or comprehensive psychometric analysis. Defendants with neurological dysfunction alone or with a dual diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder or intellectual disability were more likely to be found unfit to stand trial. Expert opinion was biased toward the referring agent and psychologists were less likely than psychiatrists to examine all of the relevant legal criteria. Comprehensive cognitive assessment in specific cases and more standardised assessment practices are indicated.

LanguageEnglish
Pages499-511
Number of pages13
JournalPsychiatry, Psychology and Law
Volume23
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

Aptitude
Expert Testimony
cognitive ability
fitness
Psychiatry
jurisdiction
Dual (Psychiatry) Diagnosis
New South Wales
Nervous System Diseases
Psychometrics
Intellectual Disability
expert report
Demography
expert
Psychology
demographic factors
psychiatrist
Research
psychologist
psychometrics

Keywords

  • Cognition
  • Cognitive abilities
  • Cognitive assessment
  • Competency to stand trial
  • Fitness to stand trial
  • Forensic assessment
  • Forensic neuropsychology

Cite this

@article{31c0e96d324c4d45ba70403480ed1469,
title = "Fitness to stand trial in one Australian jurisdiction: the role of cognitive abilities, neurological dysfunction and psychiatric disorders",
abstract = "In Australia, limited research of the factors determining fitness to stand trial (FST) has been conducted. In particular, the relevance of cognitive abilities and neurological dysfunction in accordance with the legal standard of R v. Presser (1958) has not been comprehensively explored. In the largest known sample of court-determined FST cases in Australia examined to date, expert reports for 153 unfit and 91 fit defendants in New South Wales (NSW) over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Data related to cognitive assessment, psychiatric disorders, neurological dysfunction, demographic factors and expert opinion were extracted. The results showed that cognitive abilities, in particular verbal memory, nonverbal skills, and executive functioning, were influential in differentiating between fit and unfit groups and determining FST. However, quantitative analysis was limited as few reports contained test scores or comprehensive psychometric analysis. Defendants with neurological dysfunction alone or with a dual diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder or intellectual disability were more likely to be found unfit to stand trial. Expert opinion was biased toward the referring agent and psychologists were less likely than psychiatrists to examine all of the relevant legal criteria. Comprehensive cognitive assessment in specific cases and more standardised assessment practices are indicated.",
keywords = "Cognition, Cognitive abilities, Cognitive assessment, Competency to stand trial, Fitness to stand trial, Forensic assessment, Forensic neuropsychology",
author = "White, {Amanda Jane} and Jennifer Batchelor and Susanne Meares and Susan Pulman and Dan Howard",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1080/13218719.2015.1080152",
language = "English",
volume = "23",
pages = "499--511",
journal = "Psychiatry, Psychology and Law",
issn = "1321-8719",
publisher = "Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group",
number = "4",

}

Fitness to stand trial in one Australian jurisdiction : the role of cognitive abilities, neurological dysfunction and psychiatric disorders. / White, Amanda Jane; Batchelor, Jennifer; Meares, Susanne; Pulman, Susan; Howard, Dan.

In: Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Vol. 23, No. 4, 2016, p. 499-511.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fitness to stand trial in one Australian jurisdiction

T2 - Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

AU - White, Amanda Jane

AU - Batchelor, Jennifer

AU - Meares, Susanne

AU - Pulman, Susan

AU - Howard, Dan

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - In Australia, limited research of the factors determining fitness to stand trial (FST) has been conducted. In particular, the relevance of cognitive abilities and neurological dysfunction in accordance with the legal standard of R v. Presser (1958) has not been comprehensively explored. In the largest known sample of court-determined FST cases in Australia examined to date, expert reports for 153 unfit and 91 fit defendants in New South Wales (NSW) over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Data related to cognitive assessment, psychiatric disorders, neurological dysfunction, demographic factors and expert opinion were extracted. The results showed that cognitive abilities, in particular verbal memory, nonverbal skills, and executive functioning, were influential in differentiating between fit and unfit groups and determining FST. However, quantitative analysis was limited as few reports contained test scores or comprehensive psychometric analysis. Defendants with neurological dysfunction alone or with a dual diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder or intellectual disability were more likely to be found unfit to stand trial. Expert opinion was biased toward the referring agent and psychologists were less likely than psychiatrists to examine all of the relevant legal criteria. Comprehensive cognitive assessment in specific cases and more standardised assessment practices are indicated.

AB - In Australia, limited research of the factors determining fitness to stand trial (FST) has been conducted. In particular, the relevance of cognitive abilities and neurological dysfunction in accordance with the legal standard of R v. Presser (1958) has not been comprehensively explored. In the largest known sample of court-determined FST cases in Australia examined to date, expert reports for 153 unfit and 91 fit defendants in New South Wales (NSW) over a five-year period were retrospectively reviewed. Data related to cognitive assessment, psychiatric disorders, neurological dysfunction, demographic factors and expert opinion were extracted. The results showed that cognitive abilities, in particular verbal memory, nonverbal skills, and executive functioning, were influential in differentiating between fit and unfit groups and determining FST. However, quantitative analysis was limited as few reports contained test scores or comprehensive psychometric analysis. Defendants with neurological dysfunction alone or with a dual diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder or intellectual disability were more likely to be found unfit to stand trial. Expert opinion was biased toward the referring agent and psychologists were less likely than psychiatrists to examine all of the relevant legal criteria. Comprehensive cognitive assessment in specific cases and more standardised assessment practices are indicated.

KW - Cognition

KW - Cognitive abilities

KW - Cognitive assessment

KW - Competency to stand trial

KW - Fitness to stand trial

KW - Forensic assessment

KW - Forensic neuropsychology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84941204224&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/13218719.2015.1080152

DO - 10.1080/13218719.2015.1080152

M3 - Article

VL - 23

SP - 499

EP - 511

JO - Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

JF - Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

SN - 1321-8719

IS - 4

ER -