A trial judge's refusal to adjourn a criminal trial to investigate a question of fitness to plead will constitute an error in the exercise of discretion where experienced counsel raises serious concerns about the accused's fitness, even if those concerns are supported only by assertions from the bar table rather than formal evidence. Case management considerations, including the lateness of the application, cannot justify refusing an adjournment where there is an appreciable likelihood that a real and substantial question about fitness could arise. On appeal, the question is whether, on a hindsight review with the benefit of fresh evidence, there was a real and substantial question as to fitness — if so, the trial was a nullity regardless of the strength of the prosecution case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 6 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 6 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.