R (F) v Secretary of State for Justice
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | MRS JUSTICE COX |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 2008 |
| Neutral Citation | [2008] EWHC 2912 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/9418/2008 |
| Date | 18 November 2008 |
[2008] EWHC 2912 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mrs Justice Cox DBE
CO/9418/2008
Mr R Pezzani (instructed by Messrs Campbell Taylor) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
Miss K Olley (instructed by Treasury Solicitors) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
: I have come to the conclusion in this case that this application should be dismissed and these are my reasons for so deciding.
This claimant is just 20 years old. His life has been blighted by severe emotional and behavioural problems and by mental disorder, which have contributed substantially to his committing criminal offences, many of them serious, and have led the courts to pass upon him custodial sentences of increasing length. His behaviour poses serious challenges for those who have to detain or to look after him.
His most recent sentence of 30 months' detention for robbery came to an end on 12th September 2008, but he is currently detained indefinitely at Kneesworth House Psychiatric Hospital having been taken there from Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution on 12th September, the day he was due to be released.
In his application for judicial review the claimant is challenging the decision of the Secretary of State for Justice dated 11th September 2008 to issue a warrant under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983 directing that the claimant be transferred from Stoke Heath to Kneesworth, the warrant being executed on the following day. Permission to apply was granted by Bennett J on 31st October.
The written grounds raise essentially a challenge to the legal power of the defendant to transfer the claimant on the day he did and a contention that the decision to issue the warrant was irrational and not in compliance with article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In his oral submissions before me, Mr Pezzani for the claimant focused on the irrationality and article 5 grounds, which he said were at the heart of this case. Whilst not abandoning the vires challenge this was in fact his secondary submission and it took a different form from that originally set out in the claim form. The defendant resists the claim and contends that the claimant has an adequate alternative remedy available to him in any event, namely the right to apply to a Mental Health Review Tribunal, which he has in fact exercised.
The facts
The claimant was born on 5th December 1987. By way of background to the events with which I am concerned, the psychiatric reports prepared on him refer to a disturbed childhood and to a history of mental health disorders. A conduct disorder was diagnosed when he was in his early teens, after he committed a number of criminal offences, and he was placed in a secure unit for six months when he was sentenced to a detention and training order at the age of 14. There are references subsequently to drug and alcohol abuse, self-harm, fire-setting and serious emotional and behavioural difficulties, an impulsive propensity and a fascination with weapons.
Further criminal convictions and custodial sentences followed. In December 2004 he was convicted of a number of offences, including wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, and was considered to be suffering from a psychopathic disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983. The psychiatrist then assessing him, Dr Lawson, considered him treatable and recommended an admission to hospital, but the court passed a two year custodial sentence from which he was released on licence in October 2005. Within a short time, however, he was returned to custody having breached the terms of his licence.
Following his release from custody in 2006 he was convicted in May 2006 of an offence of robbery and sentenced to two-and-a-half years' detention in a young offender institution. This is the relevant sentence for the purposes of the judicial review of his transfer to hospital.
There are references in the reports to incidents of bullying, fighting and self-harm whilst he was in the institution, and to his being placed in segregation on occasions. The last day of his sentence was calculated correctly as 12th September 2008.
Due to serious concerns about him and about the risks he posed on release, in 2006 the probation services commissioned a psychological assessment. The PCL-R carried out in November 2006 concluded that he was at the 99th percentile of the English male offenders in his psychopathy rating, putting him at a high risk of reoffending. An HCR 20 assessment also concluded that he was at a heightened risk of committing further acts of violence with a particular concern arising from his impulsivity. He was transferred to HMP Hindley in January 2007 and subsequently his behaviour appeared to be settling down.
The relevant medical reports
On 12th April 2007 the claimant was examined by Dr Isweran, consultant psychiatrist, whose report was dated 2nd May 2007. This followed a referral made by the East Hertfordshire National Probation Service to the Mental Health Services of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust. The claimant was being considered for release from prison in June 2007. After referring to the claimant's history and background, Dr Isweran reported his findings on mental state examination, stating in conclusion as follows:
“Even though F's views about crime can be seen as evidence of total lack of remorse and feelings towards others and an indication of an aggressive personality trait, the impression he gave at the interview was that of a lack of maturity and understanding of the issues mainly brought about by his lack of social interaction and education. … There was clearly some evidence of immaturity and naivety as he never had an opportunity to interact with people in a normal and sensible way. There was also an element of him wanting to get reaction and attention from others.”
His opinion was as follows:
“Currently, his mental disorder would come within the diagnosis of Dissocial Personality Disorder. This is confirmed by the psychological assessment undertaken recently.
F also presents a high degree of risk of violent offending. He has been involved in many incidents of self-harm and violent acts while in prison. He was released from prison a few times and he has become involved in violent acts every time he was released and had to be imprisoned again. There were a lot of concerns about his maladaptive traits, his inability to empathise with others, his fascination with knives and guns and his impulsive nature. It is generally felt that he would re-offend, possibly involving violence, if he is released from prison.
F needs to mature in his personality and needs to develop many social, living and relationship skills, if he is to be able to lead a reasonable life, without getting involved in violent and anti-social acts. This treatment can only be provided in a structured and secure environment if he is to benefit from the treatment programme. There is also some question about his treatability, and his response to treatment would depend on the nature of the therapeutic environment and the quality of the therapeutic input offered to him.
If a hospital is able to accept F for treatment, I would recommend that he be transferred to the hospital under section 47 of the Mental Health Act 1983. I will refer him to Three Bridges Regional Secure Unit in the first instance to get an opinion of his suitability for admission. He also can be considered by hospitals in the independent sector. I will also refer this case to the Bed Placement and Management Service of the Hertfordshire Partnership NHS Trust for their consideration.
If a hospital placement is not possible, it would be necessary to consider him for a structured placement, where the necessary therapeutic input can be provided.”
No hospital placement was pursued at this time, however. The claimant was released on licence on 20th June 2007 and placed in a secure hostel from where, after a number of incidents of verbal abuse and threatening behaviour, he was excluded. On 9th July 2007 his licence was revoked and he was placed at Stoke Heath Young Offender Institution. He was referred by Dr Isweran to Rampton Hospital on 22nd August 2007 but he was found not to require high security treatment to manage the risks he posed and advice was given for contact to be made with medium secure services. An approach was made by the Bed Placement and Management Team of the NHS Trust to Kneesworth House Hospital, which is a medium secure unit.
The report from Dr Morris, consultant psychiatrist at Kneesworth House, is dated 19th February 2008. It followed his examination of the claimant on 15th February. Dr Morris concluded as follows:
“Clinically, there are many soft indices that propose a diagnosis not only of ASPD and psychopathic disorder as per the legal definition, but also of clinical Clecklean psychopathy, particularly, the sense of being subtly managed and duped, the lack of remorse, the versatility of criminality, the age of onset, the difficulty in being contained in a secure environment, and the psychological sophistication, cynicism and contempt present in his analysis of the prison environment.
Regarding treatability, there is evidence that his behavioural pattern evolves in response to active management —for example his account of being a 'hermit' now —whereas before he was one of the 'top people', similarly, his degree of psychological...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (F) v Secretary of State for Justice; R (TF) v Secretary of State for Justice
...1457 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Mrs Justice Cox [2008]EWHC 2912 (Admin) QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION, ADMINISTRATIVE COURT Lord Justice Waller Vice-President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division Lord Justice Thoma......
-
R (SP) v Secretary of State for Justice [Administrative Court]
...of "treatability", as it was called for shorthand, which arose from the now repealed s47(1)(b). The court upheld the finding of Cox J ([2008] MHLR 361) that the transfer direction was flawed. It did so on 2 bases: (a) that the evidence of the decision maker did not show that she had applied......