R v Goucher  EWCA Crim 1456
The hearing of an application for an extension of time and for permission to appeal against a restricted hospital order was adjourned in order to obtain evidence from the new Responsible Clinician.
Transcript (Crown Copyright)
Neutral Citation Number:  EWCA Crim 1456 No: 201000775 A1 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL Wednesday, 25 May 2011 B e f o r e: LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD MR JUSTICE MADDISON RECORDER OF BIRMINGHAM, HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILLIAM DAVIS QC (SITTING AS A JUDGE OF THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION) R E G I N A v TANIA LOUISE GOUCHER Computer Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited A Merrill Communications Company 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838 (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) Mr J Luckhurst appeared on behalf of the Applicant Mr H Hughes appeared on behalf of the Crown J U D G M E N T (As approved) Crown copyright© 1. LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD: Mr Luckhurst, we are going to grant the application, but it will be on terms. My Lord, Maddison J, is going to give a short judgment in order to explain to the court, who will eventually deal with this appeal, why we are taking the steps we are. 2. MR JUSTICE MADDISON: On 25 August 2009 at the Crown Court at Croydon, the applicant, Tania Louise Goucher, who is now 23 years old, having been found to be under a disability and unfit to be tried, was found, in accordance with section 4A of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, to have done acts charged against her as offences. The charges were in an indictment containing two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of common assault. 3. On 27 November 2009, in accordance with section 5 of the 1964 Act, she was ordered by HHJ Pratt to be subject to a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983, and to the special restrictions set out in section 41 of the same Act. She has applied for leave to appeal against the hospital order, pursuant to section 16A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968, and the Single Judge has referred the application to the full court, as he has an application for an extension of time of about six weeks. The application relates only to the restriction order under section 41 of the 1983 Act, it being accepted that a hospital order pursuant to section 37 was appropriate. 4. It is unnecessary, in the circumstances that have arisen, to deal with the facts of the case. It suffices to say that we have a number of psychiatric reports that were available to the judge when he made the orders to which we have referred. We also have a further report from one of the doctors concerned, namely Dr Magner, dated 29 December 2010, dealing with the present condition of the applicant and with the way in which her situation has been managed since sentence was passed. 5. It had been hoped that a more up‑to‑date report would be available to this court, not least because of the terms of section 16B of the 1968 Act, which requires this court to consider whether the applicant should be dealt with differently from the way in which the court below dealt with him. That seems to us to require us to consider the situation of the applicant as it now is. 6. It had been hoped that the up‑to‑date report would be available from Dr Jusic, who was thought to be supervising the care of the applicant. It now appears, from what we have been told today by Mr Luckhurst, that the applicant has recently been transferred to another institution, namely the Bethlem Royal Hospital, and is now under the care of another medical practitioner, Dr Fotiadou. 7. It seems to us that in those circumstances the applicant ought at least to have the opportunity of producing, for the consideration of this court, further medical evidence dealing with her present situation and the present prognosis. Accordingly we propose to adjourn this application on the following terms, that within six weeks the applicant should file with this court, and serve on the prosecution, such further medical evidence as it is intended to rely on. On the information available to us, that is likely to be a report from Dr Fotiadou, but we are unable to say that that will definitely be the case. That further medical evidence having been filed and served within six weeks of today, the case should then be listed as soon as possible. It will be for the applicant to liaise with the Listing Office, having regard to the availability of the further medical witness relied upon, if the applicant takes the view that it is appropriate to call that witness before this court, which may or may not ultimately be the case. 8. For those reasons, therefore, the hearing of both applications, both in relation to time and in relation to the question of permission to appeal, stand adjourned. 9. MR LUCKHURST: There will be one other issue. You will be aware, because Miss Goucher is under disability, that there will be no legal aid costs order in place. We have to apply for costs from Central Funds in this matter. In my experience of doctors one of the first questions they ask is, "Who is paying for it?", because the legal aid order is not in place. May I ask for that to be paid out of Central Funds as well? 10. MR JUSTICE MADDISON: We will grant an order that the cost of the provision of one medical report, one psychiatric report, the identity of the reporting consultant being in the discretion of the applicant's legal advisers, be from Central Funds, but we will not make any further order in relation to costs. That will be reserved to the court which hears the application. 11. MR LUCKHURST: I am grateful, my Lord. 12. LORD JUSTICE PITCHFORD: Thank you very much.
No Bailii link (for this neutral citation number): this message will automatically be replaced by a link when Bailii publishes the judgment.