Mentally‐Disordered Offenders and the Police
| Date | 01 June 1996 |
| Published date | 01 June 1996 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/13619322199600018 |
| Pages | 25-27 |
| Author | Martin Cherrett |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
The Mental Health Review 1:2 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) 1996 25
Martin Cherrett, Inspector*
NEW SCOTLAND YARD
Agreat deal of the debate about how mentally-
disordered offenders are dealt with revolves
around how they are defined. Are we talking
about mentally-ill people who commit offences
because of their illness? Or can the ‘mad’ also be
‘bad’? If there are no treatments available for certain
groups of offenders, is there a point in giving them
a distinct label? Is it fair to describe people as
offenders if they have not actually been convicted
by a court?
Much of the debate between psychiatrists and
lawyers is centred on the most serious offenders,
where insanity pleas and diminished responsibility
are the focus of concern.1In the public mind,
homicide cases like those of Jeffrey Dahmer and
Dennis Nilsen seem to define madness, while the
popular media are content to associate care in the
community with the apparent menace of ‘big, black
and dangerous’2offenders. For police officers, the
daily reality is rather more mundane, less to do with
a few serious offenders and more with a fairly large
group of people whose behaviour, for one reason or
another, has brought them to the attention of police.
The most obvious group of mentally-ill individuals
arrested by the police are those detained under
allows the police to arrest a person and detain them
for up to 72 hours, in a place of safety, for assessment
under the Mental Health Act. The Mental Health
Act Commission suggests that it is good practice
for the assessment to commence within an hour of
arrival at the place of safety. The police experience
is that it often takes much longer to arrange the
assessment, and then even longer to arrange
admission to hospital. This can tie-up valuable
police resources for an unacceptably long time.
While a place of safety can be a police station, this
is obviously not a suitable environment for someone
who is ill. For these reasons, the Metropolitan Police
have made it their policy that people should be
taken directly to hospital for assessment whenever
possible. However, a fifth of police divisions in
London are still waiting for their local hospitals
to provide suitable assessment facilities.
On the face of it, Section 136 is a very wide
power. Relatively large numbers of people wandering
the streets of urban areas appear to be suffering
from mental disorder and ‘in immediate need of
care’ in their own interests, even if they are not in
immediate need of control. In practice, the police
make use of this power very sparingly, anticipating
the emphasis that the medical profession place on
the ‘control’ aspect when people are brought to a
place of safety. The main consideration when people
are assessed at a place of safety is whether, taking
everything into account, it is necessary to admit the
person to hospital. The Mental Health Act is not a
mechanism for ensuring that those who apparently
need ‘care’ actually receive it. In around 90% of
cases, the police decision to arrest will be followed
by an acknowledgement that the person needs to
be admitted to hospital. In 1995, over 1,500 people
were detained by the Metropolitan Police in
London under Section 136.
Many more people are arrested on suspicion of
committing a criminal offence and subsequently
Mentally-Disordered Offenders
and the Police
FOCUS ON…
* The views expressed are personal to the author and do not represent Metropolitan Police Service policy.
To continue reading
Request your trial