Well this was totally predictable

[OverlyFragrant]

Woman identifying as a man is 'raped in all-male psychiatric ward' https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15461027/Transgender-man-raped-male-psychiatric-hospital-ward-court-hears.html?ito=native_share_article-bottom

Shame on these men and shame on the NHS for placing this poor women directly in the hands of predators.

I think we are probably looking at Wilful Neglect with individuals in the trust liable.

Mental Health Act 1983 section 127
Ill-treatment of patients.
(1)It shall be an offence for any person who is an officer on the staff of or otherwise employed in, or who is one of the managers of, a hospital [F1, independent hospital or care home]—
(a)to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect a patient for the time being receiving treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in that hospital or home; or
(b)to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect, on the premises of which the hospital or home forms part, a patient for the time being receiving such treatment there as an out-patient.

(2)It shall be an offence for any individual to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect a mentally disordered patient who is for the time being subject to his guardianship under this Act or otherwise in his custody or care (whether by virtue of any legal or moral obligation or otherwise).

(3)Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [five years] or to a fine of any amount, or to both.
(4)No proceedings shall be instituted for an offence

Mental Capacity Act 2005 section 44
Ill-treatment or neglect
(1)Subsection (2) applies if a person (“D”)—
(a)has the care of a person (“P”) who lacks, or whom D reasonably believes to lack, capacity,
(b)is the donee of a lasting power of attorney, or an enduring power of attorney (within the meaning of Schedule 4), created by P, or
(c)is a deputy appointed by the court for P.

(2)D is guilty of an offence if he ill-treats or wilfully neglects P.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [the general limit in a magistrates’ court] or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or a fine or both.

What the legal definition of Wilful Neglect?
I'm struggling to find a definitive answer to this but it's basically a deliberate or reckless act which is a conscious failure to provide necessary care or a reckless disregard for the patient's well-being or an extreme failure to meet the expected standard of care with the exclusion of genuine errors and accidents. One of the key phrases seems to be
Wilful neglect involves deliberately not doing something that the person knew they ought to have done. Which in the context of the title of this thread, seems to be pretty on the money...

Liability is both individual and institutional (and would include managers setting policy)

With this in mind, the Darlington ruling really really should be a wake up call for NHS lawyers and liability managers...

In the criminal case the issue will (should) be with if the CPS can prove that the two men knew there was no consent and forced the sex act anyway. Working out the "knew" bit is working out if they has capacity or not

What the hospital policy was or what staff did or did not do were covered by the "hospital is not on trial" ststements.

Btw it also includes wilful neglect not just in terms of physical harms but also dignity and privacy.

The hospital is not on trial in this case no.

But it could be used as a partial defence by the men and open the door to future court cases about this incident.

It certainly is relevant and certainly will be something that will be hard not to look at if the two men do walk.

basically a deliberate or reckless act which is a conscious failure to provide necessary care or a reckless disregard for the patient's well-being or an extreme failure to meet the expected standard of care with the exclusion of genuine errors and accidents.

The Trust wrote a policy and did not risk/stress test it by providing staff with a starting point of evidence needed to assess the risk of a rape happening.

They expected frontline staff to work out an individuals risk of being raped or being a rapist.
^ that is not possible.

They expected frontline staff to perdict the future eg staffing levels were sufficent to safeguard to prevent a rape happening.
^ that is not possible.

And from that make a clinical decision about placing a female on what should have been a male only ward.

Agreed 100%

They point blank refused to look into the complaints I and others sent as it was an ongoing trial.
I resubmitted my complaint after the ruling and they finally got back to me this week saying that they still can't look at it because the case is being appealed so its still a live case 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬

Humm..... are they afraid that the SC would rule that a doctor can assault a patient so saying that is not a professional ethics problem???

Or hoping that people who contacted them to investigate will forget ....

If they are found not to have capacity they might not walk - they might still be retained in a secure psychiatric facility. Such hospitals might seem nicer than prison but your stay is potentially open ended. Plus see ‘One flew over the cuckoo’s nest’. No lobotomies anymore thank goodness (though I always feel the history of lobotomies is not too dissimilar to ‘gender affirming care’) but it detention in a secure psychiatric unit is definitely not just walking from court.

Plus I think the hospital should be on trial

I think that its a bit of both and also the fear of being sued by both TRAs and the female victims.
The TRAs would sue for not validating their new identity and the victims for enabling men to sexually assault them by lieing about their sex.
Then ofcourse there's the reputational damage to the GMC of being sued too

Just to add, I don’t genuinely think modern psychiatric facilities are like that, but just that being in a secure unit is very different from freedom

THIS. The hospital should be on trial (and managers within it) AHEAD of these men.

The men were detained as was the female person who identified as male because they were a risk to themselves and others. Presumably none of these had any say over where they were placed. It wasn't their decision. It took less than an hour, if reports are to be believed, before the rape happened. Anyone who's spent 5 mins on here could tell you that was a massive safeguarding failure and a disaster waiting to happen.

There are different rules for criminal and civil matters. You can't escape a criminal charge on the grounds that your employer or someone in authority over you said it was fine (otherwise it would be impossible to prosecute almost everyone involved in organised crime 'Yes your honour, I did rob a bank and use the proceeds to by 50kg of heroin. But Knuckles said it was in my job description'.)

Capacity is a separate matter.

Someone had to check this woman into the ward.
That person failed utterly and should be investigated.

The hospital should be on trial.
This is wilful neglect.

It's worth recalling that in 2015 the govt created a specific offence so that abusive & willfully neglectful frontline care workers could be punished with up to 5 years in prison but conveniently omitted to create any matching offence for members of the professional managerial class who dream up abusive policies that willfully embed & require neglect.

Edited for dyslexia, some may remain

The individuals who admitted the female victim were following hospital policy determined far above their pay grade.

They do. In the US and other countries this is also legally considered rape. The UK is a bit of an outlier requiring that rape can only be done with a flesh and blood pénis attached to a man.

Not always, in the US it is more often the police than an ambulance. This is because under privatised healthcare an ambulance ride costs the patient upwards of $1k which someone in mental health crisis generally cannot pay. So ambulances refuse to attend, which leaves the police who are funded by the state (small s state, like Oklahoma)

Absolutely the hospital is responsible. This crime should result in individual trials against the rapists- sure they might get a hospital order instead of prison- if they were too mentally unwell to be fully criminally responsible. But the hospital staff and management may also be criminally responsible and if not- not sure if your NHS hospitals have some kind of immunity like our State mental hospitals, there is still possibility of civil cases for compensation, having staff getting licenses to practice removed, being fired from their posts, and so on.

And this is why I love the NHS.

We are simply more specific in charging, there is no difference in the relevant sentencing guidelines.

We are in the uk talking about the UK ambulance services and the nhs psychiatric services.

Quite.