Nottingham attacks - verdict

[DrunkenElephant]

I live in Nottingham and feel terribly sad reading the news today.

Could these deaths have been avoided if the police and mental health agencies had done more? But then how can more be done when services are on their knees?

I don’t know the answer to either question, but my hearts go out to the families of Barnaby, Grace and Ian.

The measure of compasssionate and moral society is how it manage dysfunction and criminality. The perpetrator will now be detained in Secure hospital on a section 37/41. He will be assessed receive treatment and be commenced on a medication regime to treat and maintain his illness and restore a level of well-being. Secure hospital is certainly not an easy option and this man has lost his freedom he doesn’t have any spontaneity he will be restricted in his movements and he will have to remain in hospital until he is deemed not to be a risk. He will not be released until either the Secretary of State for Justice or a First Tier Tribunal assess that he no longer poses a risk to the public.

That’s complete nonsense. At any point until the very recent past the charge would have been murder. A pp assures us that Sutcliffe was a diagnosed schizophrenic at the time of his offences and he was charged with murder and successfully convicted. What this thread is testimony to is some sections of society’s softness on horrific crime and turning the perpetrator into the victim.

In any sane universe those three people were murdered.

You're kind of proving the point here. His universe was not sane, and you cannot legally commit 'murder' if you do not have the capacity to understand what you are doing. Society cannot simply ignore the fact that serious mental health conditions exist, and treat those suffering from them as though they are in control of themselves when they are not. That is not just either.

Grace O'Malley-Kumar, Barnaby Webber, and Ian Coates were killed. Use whatever parlance you want in day to day life but 'murder' has a strict legal meaning, and so it should. Legally, they were not murdered. Call it 'semantics' if you like, but law is semantics.

A manslaughter charge doesn't indicate that the pain and suffering of the victims and families should be seen as any lesser. The lives of three people were still brutally ended before their time, and now their killer has been incarcerated in the appropriate place. The public whipping up a frenzy based on what crime think sounds worse is no help to the families at all.

It’s murder to me.

Based on your thorough understanding of s2 of the Homicide Act 1967 and the application of the diminished responsibility defence in murder charges, which you think was wrongfully applied, I assume? Or is it that you just think 'murder' sounds worse?

The vigil after it happened with police and councillors all in attendance, coming out with all that love unites us all stuff made me uneasy. Is it far fetched of me to suggest that the police organised it and pressured the families to take part to mitigate against their own failings?

The families have every right to be angry. I'm sure "lessons will be learned" etc. Until it happens again.

Excellent post. Clear explanation of the salient points

At any point until the very recent past the charge would have been murder.

He was charged with murder.

If someone is charged with murder and is successfully found to have a sufficiently disturbed mind during the crime (which was clearly made out), the killer is liable for manslaughter. Thats is how the law is written and has been for decades.

It doesn't mean that in every case the defence is sufficiently made out, or even used. If the defence can't demonstrate that the mentally ill killer was suffering from an episode during the events of the crime then it wouldn't be made out and it would stay murder.

He was diagnosed afterwards.

And moved to a secure hospital.

I really appreciate people taking time to share their knowledge on here and explain schizophrenia, mental health care and what happens in a secure hospital.

What I am genuinely confused about is why he could plead guilty to manslaughter for the three he killed but guilty of attempted murder for the three he didn't kill.
If he was deemed not to have the mental capacity to plead guilty to actual murder on the basis of diminished responsibility then how could he have been deemed mentally fit to plead guilty to attempted murder?
If he had killed the three with the van would it have been murder or manslaughter?

Not trying to inflame the discussion or be 'ignorant'. I genuinely don't understand this and I don't have anyone to ask.

Apologies to @BIossomtoes I got that wrong - his wife had a diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and he was accused of copying her symptoms/faking mental illness

Hi @Peskysquirrel

This has been explained upthread really well, I don’t fully understand law but I think it is because there is no such thing as attempted manslaughter. He would have initially been charged with murder and attempted murder I think, but the murder charges changed to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility after psychiatric assessment.

Had the three people hit with the van died, and thank god they didn’t, the charge would have changed from murder to manslaughter due to diminished responsibility as it did with Grace, Barnaby and Ian.

Thanks @DrunkenElephant I will try and get my head around it.

Also thank you to you and others on here who have tried to explain schizophrenia and psychosis. It must be very upsetting to put it all in writing. I feel I have some understanding now of this 'alternative reality' (apologies if that's the wrong description)

It really is upsetting, and so frustrating that people still stigmatise mental health like this.

I urge anyone who is not familiar with paranoid schizophrenia to read about it, or watch some documentaries on YouTube.

While I stand by my stance that there were 7 victims in this awful case, my heart absolutely breaks for the families of those who lost loved ones that day, I can understand their anger. I can’t begin to imagine their pain.

@Peskysquirrel schizophrenia is a debilitating and scary illness. Cases like this are the minority and the vast majority of individuals with schizophrenia are quietly just getting on. Some are supported by family but in a lot of cases they are socially isolated leading suboptimal lives. We do you live in a society that demonises and stigmatises mental illness in particular schizophrenia.

fundamentally there’s still a lot of misunderstanding and stigma around mental health. To the extent that you hear people say things like oh I’m a little bit OCD. No, no one is a little bit OCD is not a quirky trait or a funny little affectation. OCD is also debilitating illness. Having colour-coordinated folders relation to keep things tidy and in order is not being a little bit OCD, it is simply that you like to keep your stationary neat and desk in order.

there is a stigmatisation of certain diagnoses such as schizophrenia or personality disorder. You’re unlikely to get any celebrities revealing on Twitter or daytime TV that they have an EUPD diagnosis or schizophrenia.

Re the planning side

I once worked with a lady (who shared her story publicly) who was about to move house. She booked movers, went out bought boxes and packed her stuff up over the course of a few weeks, handed in her notice on her flat . The removal men came, and packed but noticed something was amiss when they pulled up to her new house, she told them she was moving in with a boyfriend and her parents didn't approve.

It wasn't her new house, it was a delusion that she was moving in with a celebrity as part of a plan to marry them. She was 100% convinced that they'd asked her to move in and made appropriate preparations over 2 months.

She now shares it as part of a course of her experience of mental health but its a good example that you can plan rationally for an irrational plan.

Civilised society??? in any so called civilised society, this man would have been in a secure facility long ago.
We abandon the mentally ill and the govt leaves the rest of us to pick up the pieces.

Judging by your posts, anyone would think he didn't have a fair trial.

So yet again, we forget the victims and focus on the killer.

There have been numerous cases of people killing when they haven't taken their medication, so why on earth are they allowed out to roam free?

I’m not disagreeing with you but how would society / people know if they haven’t taken their medication?

I once worked on the case of a man who, in a psychotic episode, killed his dogs. He lived alone and they were his only companions. He had also tried to attack his elderly neighbour who he'd always been friendly with (she locked the house and called the police).

He had no memory of the event. After he'd been treated, the memory of what he'd done returned. It haunted him, he was absolutely devastated that he'd done that. He loved his dogs, and all he could remember was killing them. I love my dogs and I can't even imagine doing something like that, the very thought breaks my heart.

When he was sane, he was a gentle and calm person.

Psychosis is frightening. It warps your reality. Many people posting on here don't have the tiniest idea what it can do to a person.

So what do you propose statutory medication monitoring for all in the Community? who is going to undertake that? 7 day a week inc weekend and bank holiday . Morning, lunchtime, evenings.

How does one ensure compliance with medication before people are allowed to roam? What would you do? What if a CMHT/ psychiatrist ask a person are you taking your medication and they say no…then what?

okay so it becomes known to the community team and psychiatrist that an individual is not taking the medication and they are as you say roaming. So what happens?

in the event of medication noncompliance leading to a deterioration in mental health one needs to evidence deterioration to such a degree that a Mental health act is required. In order to organise the mental health act need two psychiatrists. An approved mental health practitioner and the police to convey the client. Not just any old police mind you need police trained in mental health. For a planned mental health act only a certain number of police slots available each day and in reality the wait can be weeks for a preplanned mental health act assessment .You need to arrange transportation. you need a locksmith to be present if you’re assessing someone in the community in the own home to make the property secure if police had to force the door. You also need to have a mental health bed ,currently there is over occupancy in beds and no mental health beds available in trusts and trusts have to look for a private bed this cost thousands of pounds.

Community staff cannot compel a patient to take medication in the community. No one is going to force someone to take a tablet or take a injection

The exception to this is If an individual is subject to a community treatment order CTO .one of the conditions would be compliance with medication in the community. And event of the individual becoming non-compliant they can be recalled into hospital and medication can be commenced in a hospital setting. Note, I said recommenced in hospital setting. In someone’s domestic home there is no provision for staff forcing the individual to take medication. So all this you would think… Or they should be forced… Just make them… None of that verbosity works.

@Zone2NorthLondon excellent post. Can I ask, do you work in this field?

Anti-psychotic medication can be given by long-acting intra-muscular injection called a depot preparation so non-compliance would be clear

Depot preparations aren't suitable for every patient or always acceptable to patients because of side-effects eg pain/lumps at injection site, adverse reactions can't be reversed etc

So this obviously has to be with the patients consent - or against their will under certain very limited sections of the Mental Health Act

and also, a dertermined patient could remove their depot implant (not sure which form these are)

Sure do. Is it obvious?

@Zone2NorthLondon only a little bit 😂

Implant 'technology' isn't used for depot injections

No. Absolutely not. Depot Is injected intramuscularly and is long acting and is released slowly over time usually 28 days sometimes fortnightly. There is no cartridge that is injected into patients. Once the staff have administered the depot there is no way that it can be removed. The formulation is that the medicine is contained in a thick viscous oil and is released slowly