To think that the tribunal is partly responsible for this man's death?

[Lougle]

Jeffrey Barry is a man with paranoid schizophrenia. He went before a mental health tribunal in July 2016 and told them that, should be be released, he would murder his neighbour, who he believed was a paedophile, a rapist and a terrorist in Iraq. Psychiatrists advised the tribunal against release, saying that he was a danger to the public and still very unwell. The tribunal released him.

Hours later, he brutally murdered his neighbour, phoned 999 and told them that he needed to be arrested. 'I need to be arrested', says murderer in chilling 999 call after killing neighbour Guardian report.

He plead guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility, but the jury found him guilty of murder. When he was sentenced, he was given 23 years in Broadmoor hospital, on the grounds that he is psychiatrically unwell, by the judge, and although he had called the victim a racial slur, the judge held that this could not be a racially aggravated crime because, the defendant could not be held by the standards of the average public.

AIBU to think that if Mr Barry was obviously ill enough to warrant 2 psychiatrists giving the opinion that he should not be released from his section 3, and had warned that on release, he would kill someone, then the tribunal should share at least some of the responsibility for what happened?

It was not unforeseen. Ill as he was, the patient had enough insight to forsee it. But the tribunal didn't listen. Despite being named as a focus for attack, the neighbour wasn't warned and wasn't moved from the sheltered accommodation to a different sheltered accommodation.

What a tragedy.

I was an RMN for many years and have attended a lot of mental health act review tribunals and they do usually listen to the psychiatrists and other staff so I'm not sure what went wrong here? But yes it is a tragedy

I was also an RMN and I suspect there is a lot more to this story than we will ever know. But yes, an awful tragedy.

OP I read the Guardian report you linked to but it doesn’t describe the situation in your OP.

OP I think you need to read the report you link to again as it I can't see any of the claims that you are making, e.g. he good tribunal he would kill or it was recommended her wasn't released in that report. Do you have a link to another report that backs up your claims or do you know more about the case? If it wasn't for wasonthelist I wouldn't have read the report but I'm glad I did so I can see what it actually said

According to the report 'Barry applied to be released from hospital after promising not to drink alcohol, which exacerbated his condition' Nothing about killing

OP are you connected to this in any way? As the report doesn't mention what you typed in your OP.

“The tribunal had not known of Barry’s dislike for Ahmad, nor his progressive deterioration and his propensity to drink, Jeremy said.”

From the article. So yes OP YABU to blame the tribunal it would appear.

I'm a solicitor who has been a party to many MHT and if he said to them what you're claiming I don't believe they would release him. Where's the proof?

anutteridiot where does it sau he phoned at least one agency? How is it obvious?

There'll be more to this than the press is able to release.

Huge tragedy though.

A dreadful tragedy that could have been avoided

quoted from the Independent - "On 24 May last year, he told support workers he wanted to be notorious and murder a member of the public, adding: ”Kamil would be top of my list.“

In a phone call to police the following day, Barry told an operator: ”He has raped a vulnerable person.

“He has committed two acts of theft and he has broken a television. He is a paedophile and a terrorist in Iraq.”

He also wrote notes saying that he planned to kill people living in his shared accommodation, including Mr Ahmad."

Full article www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/jeffery-barry-guilty-murder-refugee-kamil-ahmad-rapist-terrorist-bristol-court-latest-pschizophrenic-a8004841.html

I used to work in the criminal justice system and I cannot tell you how often papers misreported the details of cases

This. Having had a bit of 'inside knowledge' of a couple of cases because they involved friends the difference between what I know and what was reported was huge. I never trusted the press particularly anyway, but the lies and misinformation can be shocking.

Sorry, I watched the 999 video on YouTube, then googled and read the Guardian article, which detailed the contents of my OP, then read a few other articles, then thought "oh the independent had an article" and forgot that it didn't detail the psychiatry input.

I know it's complicated, and I know it doesn't get reported as it always happens, but he was sectioned, he did tell psychs that he'd do it before he was released, they did recommend he wasn't released, and he was released anyway.

If the tribunal weren't told of his threats towards his neighbour, that's a failing in the preparation - how can they make a good decision?

If they were advised not to let him out and did anyway, that's a really big decision to make with terrible consequences.

Either way, his neighbour was a sitting duck.

I’ve been to 2 tribunals this week. Mostly they do make the right decisions. Wonder what evidence they had during it to release him?

Although I am reminded of a tribunal insisting that a patient should have unescorted leave periods. He went on unescorted leave and committed a sexual offence. Everyone pointed the finger at the responsible psychiatrist, who committed suicide.

Psychiatrists sometimes have to take a calculated risk that doesn't always work in their favour Glitterbug nobody should have pointed the finger though it's a damned hard job

How absolutely tragic, Glitterbug. I guess supervision wasn't very effective there . All the theory in the world can't prepare someone for when it goes wrong like that, I suppose.

That particular psychiatrist was not in favour of the patient having leave.
But as the tribunal ordered it they had to comply.