English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Australian criminal law presumes that defendants are fit to stand trial until proven otherwise on the balance of probabilities. Forensic mental health experts often provide opinions to the court about defendants’ fitness, which requires them to understand the legal context within which the court decides the defendant’s fitness status. This article outlines important case law considerations to the assessment of fitness in Australia, including the notions that fitness must be evaluated when there is a ‘real and substantial question’,1assessments should be ‘reasonable and common sense’ and accommodations should be considered when impairments in capacity are evident. The essentially negligible impact of delusions, an unhelpful defence, unmanageable behaviour and poor defendant-lawyer relationship are also considered. Finally, precedent is reviewed for the use of the  Presser  standards in New Zealand and other pacific jurisdictions.

Special considerations to the assessment of fitness to stand trial in Australia