Her Majesty's Advocate Against Thomas Robertson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judge | Sheriff John K Mundy |
| Court | Sheriff Court |
| Date | 12 March 2014 |
| Published date | 20 February 2015 |
| SHERIFFDOM OF TAYSIDE CENTRAL AND FIFE AT FALKIRK 2015SCFAL12
|
| PF Ref: ST13001036
NOTE
by
SHERIFF JOHN K MUNDY
in relation to minute by the accused in terms of section71 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995
in causa
HER MAJESTY’S ADVOCATE
against
THOMAS ROBERTSON ___________
|
Falkirk, 12 March 2014
Introduction
[1] This case called before me on 5 March 2014 as a continued first diet with the purpose of disposing of a minute at the instance of the accused (“the minuter”) under section 71 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. The case is due to proceed to trial in the sitting in this court commencing 10 March 2014.
[2] The indictment contains three charges but we are only concerned with charges 2 and 3. Charge 1 is no longer before the court as a result of procedure on 5 February 2014. The minuter challenges the relevancy of both charges 2 and 3 and also the admissibility of evidence in support of those charges on the basis that it was unfairly obtained. The charges are as follows:
(002) on 11 March 2013 at 19 Arloch Crescent, Dunblane you THOMAS ROBERTSON did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did state that you were going to kill Police Officers by setting fire to them and stabbing them;
CONTRARY to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
(003) on 3 April 2013 at Dunblane Health Centre, Well Place, Dunblane you THOMAS ROBERTSON did behave in a threatening or abusive manner which was likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm in that you did state that you had a firearm and were going to kill several people with it and place the lieges in a state of fear and alarm;
CONTRARY to Section 38(1) of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
[3] The relevant statutory provision is section 38 of the 2010 Act which is in the following terms:
38 Threatening or abusive behaviourS
This sectionnoteType=Explanatory Notes has no associated
(1 )A person (“A”) commits an offence if—
(a) A behaves in a threatening or abusive manner,
(b) the behaviour would be likely to cause a reasonable person to suffer fear or alarm, and
(c )A intends by the behaviour to cause fear or alarm or is reckless as to whether the behaviour would cause fear or alarm.
Factual Background
{4} For the purposes of the debate on the minute the parties entered into a joint minute of agreement in relation to the evidence of the relevant witnesses. The background of this matter is that on 11 March 2013 the minuter’s GP, Dr Watson, met with him. This was following a letter from the local out of hours GP service. That service had made contact with the minuter on 8 March 2013. It was noted from that information that the minuter had threatened to set fire to a police officer and to set a police station on fire. He appeared to be frustrated and anxious. There was no indication at that time that the minuter was going to follow through with his threats. The doctor suggested that the minuter be referred to mental health services for further assessment and prescribed diazepam to reduce feelings of anxiety. The minuter contacted Dr Watson’s practice on 11 March and obtained an emergency standby appointment. At that time Dr Watson was of the opinion that the minuter was angry about perceived police harassment. He did not make any specific threats to Dr Watson. Dr Watson formed the opinion that further mental health assessment was required. Following contact with a psychiatrist of the community mental health team, an urgent referral to the Intensive Home Treatment Team was made that day.
[5] As a result of the referral, two witnesses, a Mr Captain, charge nurse within the Intensive Home Treatment Team with long experience of working in the field of mental health, and a Mr Massey, community staff nurse with the same team who had experience of working in acute psychiatric wards, both visited the minuter. The criteria for referral to the service is stated by Mr Captain as being that the referrer is concerned that the patient may be suffering from a psychiatric condition which may require inpatient psychiatric treatment.
[6] Both witnesses were advised on 11 March that the minuter had homicidal and suicidal thoughts; that he was claiming to have hallucinations and was being commanded to carry out these thoughts.
[7] At approximately 7pm on 11 March the witnesses attended at the minuter’s address. The interview and assessment was based on a “pro forma” with questions covering the patient’s mental and physical health history. In this situation the patient is asked about any thoughts that he may have of suicide, self-harm or harming others. The process normally takes about an hour but on this occasion it took almost two hours as the minuter spoke at length.
[8] The minuter advised the witnesses of a certain allegation made against him and that he felt this might be linked to the fact that he was being victimised by a named police officer. He had been stopped a few times by the police. He felt he was being “bullied” and told the witness Captain that he could not tolerate bullies or being bullied. He did mention hearing voices. In the opinion of witness Captain the accused did not seem to be suffering from a psychotic illness. Specific threats were made about the named police officer. The minuter spoke about chucking petrol over him and setting him on fire. He indicated how he would go about doing this. He was aware of the consequences and that he would face jail. He indicated that if he was going to do time for one then he would kill a further three people. He named three other people including one who he said had abused him. He mentioned that on a previous occasion he had tried to procure a gun.
[9] Prior to leaving the witness Captain advised the minuter that he would be informing the police of the comments made by him. The accused then advised “Any police coming to my door will face what they get”. He then referred to police officers being stabbed. He referred to voices telling him this. During the interview the minuter presented as being aware and lucid. Mr Captain’s practice is to make clear that the information provided by a patient will be shared with some other professionals involved in the patient’s care.
[10] Witness Captain did not feel threatened by the minuter but did want to leave the property. He was not alarmed or fearful and did not feel that he was at risk. However, he formed the opinion that as a result of the threats made by the minuter in relation to specific individuals, there was a sufficient risk to members of the public to make it necessary to report these threats to the police. This was, in his experience, a rare situation. He could not recall another time where he had taken the decision to contact the police in relation to risk to another person while he had been a member of the Intensive Home Treatment Team. He had on other occasions reported patients to the police where they had become physically hostile towards him during interview.
[11] The agreed evidence of Mr Massey is similar in its terms to that of Mr Captain. He would not normally raise with a patient whether threats would be reported to other services. However due to comments and threats made by the minuter during the course of the interview he was advised that nurses were under an obligation to report the threats that had been made. The minuter was told this when he made threats. He was not given a general warning at the start of the interview akin to a caution.
[12] During the assessment the witness indicated that the minuter made direct threats against a named police officer, that he felt bullied by that particular officer and that he wanted to get some petrol and set him on fire and kill him. Later on the minuter stated how he would go about doing this. He indicated that he would not go down for just killing one person and he made mention of killing an abuser who had previously abused him and two other males. The witness was concerned by this as it, in his view, indicated a degree of thought into the threats. The minuter also stated that he would do time in jail for the killings and thereafter said he would also kill himself. He made reference to having tried to source a gun unsuccessfully. According to the agreed evidence of Massey the minuter was advised that the police would be informed of what the minuter had said and the minuter responded “if any police were to come to my door they will get what is coming to them” and “if I’m going to get arrested I will make it worth my while”. He also said “a cop will leave with a knife in his back.” The minuter then spoke of killing himself after he had done this. Witness Massey was also of the opinion that the minuter was not suffering from any mental illness and that the comments could not be attributed to a psychotic episode or mood disorder. When the minuter was advised of this he told witness Massey that he did have mental health problems. Witness Massey advised the minuter that he was of the view that his problems related to his personality and his past.
[13] Witness Massey felt uncomfortable that the accused was making specific threats but he did not feel threatened by him. The minuter was calm and cooperative throughout the interview. He was not angry or aggressive. The minuter became irritable when witness Massey advised him that he would not be admitted to hospital. This witness was alarmed by the comments that the minuter made in relation to what he wanted to do to specific individuals, but the minuter’s comments did not cause him fear. He did not feel that there was any risk towards him or witness Captain. In his experience it was very rare for a patient undergoing that type of interview process to make clear and well developed threats against named persons. Occasionally vague...
To continue reading
Request your trial