His Majesty’s Advocate v. Michael Porchetta [2024] HCJ 4

Examination of Facts:- On 19 May 2022, at Livingston Sheriff Court, the Accused was fully committed in custody in relation to these proceedings which related to a charge of murder and associated charges of theft and attempting to defeat the ends of justice. He was indicted to a Preliminary Hearing at Glasgow High Court on 2 March 2024 and, following concerns about his mental fitness a temporary compulsion order was made for him to be transferred to the State Hospital under conditions of special security, in terms of section 54 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. On behalf of the accused a preliminary minute was lodged challenging his fitness to plead and a number of reports by various psychiatrists and psychologists were lodged all of which agreed that the accused was by reason of a mental or physical condition, incapable of participating effectively in a trial in terms of section 53F of the 1995 Act. On 8 April 2024 evidence was led at a hearing from Dr Johanna De Villiers, a Consultant Psychiatrist at the High Secure Intellectual Disability Service based at the State Hospital Carstairs and from Dr Stuart Doig, a Consultant Forensic Psychiatrist based at the State Hospital Carstairs, both of whom were instructed by the Crown. Thereafter, the judge held on the balance of probabilities that the accused was unfit to plead in terms of section 53F of the 1995 Act by reason of cognitive and learning impairment and discharged the trial diet and fixed an Examination of Facts to be held in November 2024 in terms of section 54(1)(b) of the 1995 Act. At the EOF the Crown led evidence from a number of sources and presented a compelling circumstantial case. No evidence was led on behalf of the defence. Following submissions by the Crown and by the defence on behalf of the accused the judge, in terms of section 55(1) of the 1995 Act, determined that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did the acts libelled in the indictment and, on the balance of probabilities, that there were no grounds for acquitting him and the case was continued for further psychiatric reports and a report from a mental health officer prior to the final disposal of the case.