R v Kurtaj

Subject Matter

CRIME — Plea — Fitness to plead — Finding of unfitness to plead — Appeal against finding that defendant did act charged on ground admission of evidence of previous conviction for similar offence unfair — Absence of assessment of fitness to plead at time of previous conviction — Whether failure to exclude evidence rendering finding unsafe — Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964 (c 84), s 4A — Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c 44), ss 101, 103

[2025] EWCA Crim 1163; [2025] WLR(D) 459, CA

CRIME — Costs — Power to award — Costs from central funds — Trial judge refusing leave to appeal finding that unfit defendant did act charged — Whether counsel having authority to renew application to full court — Whether funding from central funds available — Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964, s 4A — Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (c 19), s 15 — Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (c 23), s 19(3)(d) — Crim PR r 45.4 — Costs in Criminal Cases (General) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1335), Pt III

[2025] EWCA Crim 1163; [2025] WLR(D) 459, CA

AI Summary & Issues

Content generated by AI, as supplied by Jurisage. Learn more about AI Case Summaries.

In the Court of Appeal, Arion Kurtaj appealed against findings of unfitness to plead concerning twelve computer hacking offences. The court upheld the jury's determination of his actions but granted leave to appeal on the admissibility of prior convictions, which were found to be unfairly prejudicial. The appeal against the jury's findings was dismissed, and Kurtaj remains under a hospital order under the Mental Health Act. The court also addressed representation and funding issues for unfit defendants, ordering that costs for the successful appeal ground be covered from central funds.

Issues

• Did the judge err in admitting evidence of the applicant's previous convictions from March 2021, considering the implications for his fitness to plead and the risk of unfair prejudice?
• Was the evidence regarding the applicant's breach of bail conditions pertinent to the jury's evaluation of his intent and recklessness concerning the charges he faced?
• Did the judge appropriately refuse to permit cross-examination about "the suspect," given the likelihood of confusion and speculation about the applicant's role in the alleged cyber offences?