It is reported that a pensioner with dementia was convicted in criminal court of using a TV receiver without a licence (Communications Act 2003, s. 363). At the time of the offence, she had just gotten out of hospital after a stroke.
Could this have been a case where a plea of Not guilty because of mental impairment would have had a chance of succeeding? Where is the threshold in such cases?
The threshold is the same no matter the offence, and no matter the age of the accused. See section 16 of the Criminal Code:
16 (1) No person is criminally responsible for an act committed or an omission made while suffering from a mental disorder that rendered the person incapable of appreciating the nature and quality of the act or omission or of knowing that it was wrong.
(2) Every person is presumed not to suffer from a mental disorder so as to be exempt from criminal responsibility by virtue of subsection (1), until the contrary is proved on the balance of probabilities.
The alleged crime that the pensioner was convicted of was failing to pay the fees.
A pensioner with dementia who had suffered a stroke has been convicted of not paying her TV Licence, in the latest harsh case to emerge from Britain’s fast-track courts.
The law is very simple: You need a license if you watch TV. Your license is discounted if you fulfill some conditions. No state of mind required. In other words: you can not have a mental impairment that excuses you, or anyone else, from not having a license. Or applying for the free license.
The problem in the reported case is the fast-track court system catching cases where they should have granted a free license and paperwork not getting to the right spots in time to meet the very rigid timelines.
