Procedural treatment of mentally ill defendants: a comparative study of Jordanian and Egyptian law

Introduction: Mental health and the ability to discern and, procedurally, the defendant’s fitness to participate effectively in proceedings are central to criminal responsibility and due process. When a defendant is suspected of a mental disorder, decisions on whether to suspend or continue proceedings, order psychiatric assessment/treatment placement, and allocate decision-making authority between prosecution and court can materially affect fair-trial guarantees. This article compares Jordanian and Egyptian approaches at the investigation and trial stages.
Objectives: (1) Identify when proceedings should be suspended if illness existed at the offense; (2) define prosecutorial and judicial powers to order placement and dispose of cases; (3) assess whether time in psychiatric facilities is credited toward sentence; (4) compare the effects of findings of non-responsibility (Jordan) versus acquittal (Egypt).
Methods: Doctrinal and comparative analysis of key statutes (Jordan CPC art. 233; Penal Law art. 92; Egypt CPC arts. 338–342; Penal Code art. 62), supported by illustrative high-court decisions and recent scholarship.
Results: Jordan permits treatment placement and continued necessary investigation but lacks an explicit suspension rule when illness existed at the offense, retains an exceptional pathway to try a mentally disabled defendant with a guardian or appointed lawyer, and does not credit psychiatric confinement toward sentence. Egypt mandates suspension when illness arises post-offense (art. 339), limits placement to 45 days (art. 338), authorizes a “no basis for a criminal case” order when evidence shows illness negated culpability at the time of the offense (art. 342), and credits psychiatric confinement toward sentence (art. 341). Substantively, Jordan orders “conviction with declaration of non-responsibility,” whereas Egypt issues an acquittal.
Conclusions: Jordan should codify suspension when illness existed at the offence, credit psychiatric-facility time, clarify trial-while-disabled provisions, and standardize medical-assessment criteria and timelines to better align due process with culpability principles.