Cases in Mentally Disordered Suspects, Defendants, and Offenders - Essay Example

?Case Study A a) Outline the options available to the police in this situation and assess the likelihood of the use of Mental Health Act powers at this stage. Given the situation, the police can arrest Wayne for breach of peace (alternatively “a breach of the Queen’s peace”). The power under the breach of peace for arresting a person can be utilised in order to remove a person who has committed a violent act or is deemed to commit a violent act. There is also no requirement for an offender to be involved in physical violence or to have any previous criminal record. As per Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex the court determined that the Constable could arrest a person who could commit an act of violence or could breach the peace (Jerrard, 2000). Under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act a police officer can detain a person who is considered to be mentally disordered. The police officer can remove the person from a public place (such as in this case) and take them to a “place of safety” including a police station or a psychiatric hospital ward. Further assessment can take place in these places in order to implement treatment under Section 2 or Section 3 of the Mental Health Act (Legislation Government of United Kingdom, 2012 a). b) Discuss police obligations in relation to vulnerable detainees, and with reference to research findings, evaluate the possibility of appropriate intervention being made in Wayne’s case. The police are under obligation of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act to go for an assessment as soon as the person is at a “place of safety” which could be either the police station or a psychiatric hospital ward. The assessment is carried out by two doctors, typically a general practitioner (GP) and a psychiatrist as well as an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) such that at least one doctor is a Section 12 approved doctor. The subject assessment may recommend treatment under Section 2 or Section 3 but given the current circumstances the possibility of Section 2 based treatment is high. Section 2 recommends detained treatment for patients who need to be monitored during treatment. Since Wayne has left the treatment system once before so Section 2 is more appropriate1 for ensuring that Wayne undergoes the entire treatment procedure. c) Critically assess the opportunities for diversion at this stage of the criminal justice process. The policemen attending the call for a “drunken homeless person” would have no idea of Wayne’s background unless he is brought to the station for identification. If careful attention is not paid to Wayne’s background as suffering from schizophrenia, there are chances that he would be prosecuted for breach of peace. This would preclude any chances of mental health assessment and would force Wayne into prison for his actions (though this may not be necessary). The eventual consequence of this approach would be that Wayne would be released back into society again without any changes to his persona. The brush with the criminal justice system may make Wayne more violent and thus a greater danger to public safety. Since Wayne is not involved in a serious crime so there are chances that police in more busy precincts may not adopt the complete procedure for mental health assessment. d) What after care provision should be available for Wayne when he is discharged from hospital? And is there any evidence to suggest that this will prevent the recurrence of these events? The Mental Health Act does not provide for community intervention and when it does it is only weakly applicable. The real measure of after care provided by the community is “guardianship” that mandates that the patient will reside at a particular address, will attend a specific clinic regularly and may attend designated workplaces or educational institutions. However, all of this information must be tabulated and followed up after the patient is discharged from the hospital and such follow-up cannot be enforced onto the patient. Section 117 provides that patients who are discharged from a hospital must be followed up with in order to ensure that the patient does not worsen (Eldergill, 2006). The inclusion of after care in the entire treatment procedure is essential and its results are undeniable. For example, in R v Ealing District Health Authority2 it was made abundantly clear that the patient needed follow up in order to prevent any further outbursts that could endanger his life or the lives of other people. The patient can also be readmitted as required and deemed appropriate by the concerned doctors in order to deal with treatment as shown in R v Oxford Regional Mental Health Review Tribunal3 in order to deter the recurrence of violence. Therefore, it is undeniable that after care is necessary to ensure that violence does not recur. Case Study B a) Outline the possible psychiatric defenses which may be available to Tara and Graham on the basis of this evidence and evaluate the likelihood of their success in each case. Tara and Graham would be provided with psychiatric defense given the classification and identification of their mental health problems. The Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 would apply in tandem with Section 45A of the Mental Health Act. The murder is the first time that a serious offence has been attributed to both Tara and Graham. Hence, the judge will be forced to adopt psychiatric treatment as the preferred method of retribution for both cases. However, the path of retribution will depend on the judge’s discretion alone under Sections 35 to 37. b) Discuss the therapeutic options available to the sentencing judge under mental health legislation at this stage. The Mental Health Act tends to loose effect when serious crimes are involved. Rather the Section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 is seen to apply which states that a person must be given a life sentence when a second serious offence is committed. Since both offenders were above the age of 18 and are charged with manslaughter so the circumstances mandate that the Mental Health Act may or may not apply. Under Section 45A of the Mental Health Act the Crown Court may choose to imprison the offender and then remove him to hospital instead of providing a direct hospital order (Eldergill, 2006). The possible psychiatric defense available to the offenders is that it was their first registered criminal act and so it does not constitute the second offence mandated by the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 as per Section 2. It is then purely up to the judge’s discretion to choose what course should be taken in order to deal with these offenders. In the current case, the seriousness of the crime means that both offenders may be sent to prison after which they would be referred to a hospital. c) Comment critically on the implications of a therapeutic disposal from the point of view of: (i) the public The public may see the therapeutic option as being tantamount to allowing savages to run free in the streets and do as they please. The lack of public awareness as to the success of such rehabilitation programs and schemes means that the public would see this as injustice. Moreover, the public would tend to feel insecure if these offenders were released. (ii) the offender The offenders require therapeutic disposal given their mental states and if such an option is not pursued then they may classify the justice system as being unfair to them. The circumstances also show that the offenders have just begun to display deviant behavior (as it was the first offence) so they might be treatable. d) Do you think Graham is likely to be given a therapeutic disposal? Justify your answer. It is highly unlikely that Graham would be provided with a therapeutic disposal based on previous case law. Previous cases have shown that psychopathic disorders can only be classified as mental illnesses or mental disorders. In the case of personality disorders (even severe personality disorders) the patient is not generally classified as suffering from a mental disorder under Section 1. This precludes the treatment path for such offenders and sentencing is the only real alternative available. This point has been proven through R v Mental Health Review Tribunal, ex p. Clatworthy4 as well as R v MHRT (Mersey Region) ex p. Davies5. The circumstances of the latter case resemble the current case in some respects so a similar decision may also be expected. Moreover, there are several other cases that prove beyond doubt that Graham cannot be left without an appropriate sentence6 7. e) Advise Tara on the possible length of time she will spend in hospital and the procedure for her release. Section 37 tends to proceed much like Section 3 though the latter falls under civil treatment while the former under criminal treatment. The patient is required to be under therapeutic treatment for six months at a time after which the treatment order can be renewed or discontinued. However, subsequent treatment orders tend to last for a year. Tara may appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal after the first six months period to secure her release even if the possibility of a relapse exists. Moreover, a serious crime offender may also be released by the responsible clinician (RC) in the subject case. However, all offenders released in such a manner are subject to proceedings under Section 177 indefinitely. f) Discuss the responsibility of the Prison Service in relation to Graham’s death. What other options were open to them which may have averted this outcome? The prison service should have conducted a mental health assessment for Graham in order to avert the suicide of Graham. However, this was not mandatory for the prison authorities since Graham had not been provided a therapeutic path by the judge. The exercise of greater care with such a patient such as not leaving him alone could also have averted the suicide. Case Study C a) How can the police lawfully enter Robbie’s place of residence in this situation? The police can enter Robbie’s place of residence using a number of methods that are provided under Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984 and case law. Two approaches can be used by the police – stated entry or deceitful entry into the premises (Kelly & Slapper, 2000). The first approach relies on the police providing their names and station to the concerned individual for entry into the premises8. Furthermore, the police would also have to state the purpose of their entry into the premises under Section 17 of PACE (Martin, 2005). This position has also been affirmed by relevant case law9. The second approach would allow the police to gain entry to the residence for any other cause using deception such as telling the premises owner that a pizza is being delivered. This approach has been defined and approved under case law such as R v Longman10. b) Who is responsible for the supervision of Robbie’s detention in the police station? Who has to be contacted and how effective are these safeguards likely to be in Robbie’s case? The constable is responsible for Robbie’s detention in the police station as per the Theft Act 1968, Section 26 regarding stolen property (Home Office, 2010). The family of the offender has to be contacted in this case for further action to be initiated. In case that the family is contacted, the offender will be allowed some legal options to defend his position. The offender will also be placed under the custody of the parents but given the previous circumstances of the case, these restraints may prove to be futile. c) Would diversion or prosecution better respect Robbie’s rights? Prosecution would better respect Robbie’s rights. In case that diversion is pursued there are a large amount of chances that Robbie might return to his previous ways. Unless Robbie is not charged with the crimes he has committed and held responsible, there are little chances for him to be taken to the therapeutic path for a resolution of problems. Under the Mental Health Act the offender needs to be indicted in three counts of burglary in order to be given treatment under Section 3. In Robbie’s case there is only one infraction so treatment cannot be imposed. d) Assess the likelihood of discontinuance in this case. Discontinuance may occur in this case if the plaintiff (in this case the police) chooses to forego the claims. However, it would make little sense given that Robbie has been found in possession of both drugs and stolen goods. The best possible method would be to pursue the case so that Robbie’s issues can be taken to the next level. e) Explain whether Robbie will be found fit to plead, and if not, critically assess the implications of this outcome. Robbie would hardly be found fit to plead. Given that he has been present at his parent’s house for a couple of days and so has not had his drug addiction satisfied there is little chance that he would be fit to plead. If Robbie is found not fit to plead then the judge would have to refer the case to therapeutic treatment. This would again occur under the Mental Health Act where Robbie will be diagnosed as per the allotted procedure. In addition the practitioners assessing Robbie’s condition may also choose to include drug rehabilitation programs because Robbie’s mental condition could be a cause of the drugs or the drugs could be a cause of Robbie’s mental disorder so would require attention as well. Case Study D a) Discuss with reference to research on mental disorder and violence whether it would have been possible to prevent this tragedy through intervention at an earlier stage? The effect of early intervention on preventing or controlling schizophrenia based behaviour is inconclusive (Marshall & Rathbone, 2006). Patients who have had psychotic episodes may have some effect from intervention at an early stage (van Os & Kapur, 2009). Prevention of schizophrenia is also difficult given the fact that there are no reliable symptoms of any late developments in the disorder (Cannon et al., 2007). This clearly indicates that intervention on an earlier stage may or may not have been able to prevent this tragedy. b) Should Julia be found criminally responsible for her actions in this case? Technically Julia had complete recognition of the fact that she was about to commit murder although her motives were caused by a mental disorder. Since Julia was cognisant of her condition and had just been released from hospital, she should have contacted her responsible clinician (RC) to address the problem. Her not doing so has made her responsible for her actions that might have been taken under diminished responsibility under a spontaneous rage. c) Why wasn’t Julia advised to enter a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity? If Julia was to enter a plea of guilty by reason of insanity she would have to deal with Section 37 of the Mental Health Act that would require her to be sent to prison and then for a therapeutic course to occur. Since the charge was manslaughter so she would have to serve a minimum of seven years in prison and rehabilitation centres in order to be clarified of her acts. In order to circumvent these consequences, her defence chose to go with another approach. d) Explain the reasons for her murder conviction, taking into account the legal criteria for a defence under s2. of the Homicide Act 1957. The Homicide Act of 1957 requires under Section 2 that the defendant take either of two positions – the defendant could either be suffering from an “abnormality of mind” or from a “disease of the mind”. In the former case the defendant has to prove that the mind is deficient while in the latter case the defendant has to prove that a disease of the mind existed that caused a defect of reason. Julia’s defence took the wrong position because it had already been proved that Julia was suffering from a disease of the mind and not from an abnormality of the mind. This tends to make Julia’s position indefensible since the Mental Health Act becomes inapplicable. e) Discuss the difficulties that she might pose to the prison authorities and any remaining options for diversion under Mental Health legislation. Given the circumstances, Julia may continue to suffer hallucinations which might cause her to harm herself or other prisoners. In order to avoid this problem, the prison authorities would need to monitor her continuously. The only real option available for Julia is to appeal her murder conviction and to change her defence stance so that it is evaluated under a disease of the mind. This would allow the Mental Health Act to be applied so that Julia can be offered therapeutic treatment. Bibliography Bowen, P., 2008. Blackstone's Guide to the Mental Health Act 2007. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cannon, T.D., Cornblatt, B. & McGorry, P., 2007. The empirical status of the ultra high-risk (prodromal) research paradigm. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 33(3), p.661–664. Eldergill, A., 2006. The Law Relating to Mental Health Review Tribunal: Courts Nad Procedures (Eng) the Sick and Handicapped. London: Sweet & Maxwell Limited. Gostin, L. et al., 2010. Principles of Mental Health Law and Policy. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Home Office, 2010. Codes of practice - Code B Searching premises and seizing property. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-b-2011?view=Binary" http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/police/operational-policing/pace-codes/pace-code-b-2011?view=Binary [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Jerrard, R., 2000. Bibby v Chief Constable of Essex Police. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/bibby.htm" http://www.rjerrard.co.uk/law/cases/bibby.htm [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Kelly, D. & Slapper, G., 2000. English Legal System. 2nd ed. London: Cavendish Publishers Limited. Legislation Government of United Kingdom, 2012 a. Mental Health Act 1983. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20 [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Legislation Government of United Kingdom, 2012 b. Mental Health Act 2007. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/12/contents" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/12/contents [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Legislation Government of United Kingdom, 2012 c. Homicide Act 1957. [Online] Available at: HYPERLINK "http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/contents" http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/5-6/11/contents [Accessed 3 May 2012]. Marshall, M. & Rathbone, J., 2006. Early intervention for psychosis. Cochrane Database Systematic Review, 4. Martin, J., 2005. The English Legal System. 4th ed. London: Hodder Arnold. van Os, J. & Kapur, S., 2009. Schizophrenia. Lancet, 374(9690), p.635–645. Read More