What now for deprivations of liberty?
What will the effect of the postponement of the Liberty Protections Safeguards be on local authorities? Local Government Lawyer asked 50 adult social care lawyers for their views on the potential consequences.
SPOTLIGHT |
The first-ever Mental Health Tribunal to sit in public has ruled that the patient concerned should not be discharged.
In what also represents the first time a determination has been published, the First-tier Tribunal today (26 October) revealed that the detention of Albert Laszlo Haines, 51, was still necessary for his own health and safety and for the protection of others.
Haines has been detained under s. 37/41 of the Mental Health Act 1983 since October 1986. He was initially at Broadmoor Hospital, then between 1992 and 2008 at Three Bridges, and from early 2008 at Broadmoor again. The responsible authority is West London Mental Health Trust.
The index offences were of attempted wounding, which occurred when Haines tried to attack a doctor and nurse at the Maudsley Hospital with a machete and a knife. He was returned to Broadmoor in 2008 after an incident at Three Bridges when having been placed in seclusion after arming himself with a fire extinguisher as a weapon he climbed into a roof space.
The patient had been found to be suffering from both mental illness and psychopathic disorder. However, in 2008 under the law as it then stood, he was reclassified as suffering only from psychopathic disorder. More recently it was suggested that he did suffer from a mental illness, as well as from a personality disorder, but that was the subject of dispute.
Haines, who had successfully waged a lengthy legal battle to have the hearing in public, asked the Tribunal for an absolute discharge. It was also submitted on his behalf that in the alternative the Tribunal should grant a conditional discharge, which would have to be deferred. Mr Haines asked to be discharged to his brother’s house or failing that to a hostel.
In his “detailed and very articulate” statement Mr Haines said he did not want a conditional discharge because he would find it very difficult to comply. However, he said he would comply if that were the only alternative to remaining in detention. He did not accept that he had either a personality disorder or a mental illness.
Rejecting Haines’ application for discharge, the Tribunal found that:
The Tribunal said: “Mr Haines has not progressed enough in being able to control his anger and aggression not to require detention, and he is unable to recognise the need for continuing treatment.
“In the community there would in addition be a clear risk of a misuse of alcohol and drugs. He is incapable of coping with anyone perceived to be in authority. In his own evidence Mr Haines very frankly acknowledged that he would have great difficulty in complying with conditions, and would be likely to fail: we are satisfied that in his current presentation he would be unable to comply.”
The Tribunal added that it was “in nobody’s interest” that Haines be detained – whether in high or medium security – for a day longer than absolutely necessary.
“In our judgment detention does remain necessary, and we conclude by observing that it is likely to remain so unless the treating team are able to find a way of engaging Mr Haines, and that this will require an equal commitment by Mr Haines himself.”
A copy of the determination can be downloaded here.
The hearing took place on 27-28 September 2011.