This week I represented a man suffering from delusions. Part of the evidence against him was a letter explaining he had sold his soul and wanted recompense for this. Yet the police were unwilling to even consider that he might have mental health problems. This was despite being told that he had been referred by his GP for an urgent psychiatric assessment.
I managed to get them to call a doctor to assess him. After a further two hours I was told that they wanted to proceed without an assessment but with an appropriate adult to satisfy their obligations under the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Pace). Again I insisted on an assessment. They eventually agreed.
At 1am I was informed that my client had been assessed by a doctor – in nine minutes – as not having any problems and that he didn’t even need an appropriate adult present. They wanted to interview him right now. I told them that I was an hour’s travel away from the police station and would need to consult with my client further, meaning the interview would not take place until 3am. I didn’t think it appropriate to interview someone at that time in the morning, especially considering the eight-hour rest period as required by Pace. We agreed that I would come back at 8am ahead of the interview.
I called at 7am again to try and get him reassessed by a different doctor. Although he had been examined, I could not be any clearer in my mind that he was totally unfit to be interviewed. I explained there was no way this man was fit and to save time we could reassess him now. This was refused.
On arrival at 8am, I restated my position to the sergeant. I informed him that I would be explaining on tape at the beginning of the interview that my client was unfit, wasn’t capable of understanding the consequences of his actions, nor of understanding the legal implications of his words, nor even capable of maintaining a “no comment” interview. The sergeant refused to change his mind. He was satisfied that the doctor’s short assessment of the client was correct.
These ongoing failures happened despite the codes of practice that outline how prisoners should be treated by police. They state: “If an officer has any suspicion, or is told in good faith, that a person of any age may be mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, or mentally incapable of understanding the significance of questions or their replies, that person shall be treated as mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable for the purposes of this code.”
On this basis, I tried to assess the scale of the delusion with the client, the mechanism by which he sold his soul and the manner in which it was done. He was incapable of engaging in dialogue and instead only able to speak in monologue. It was clear to me that he was thought-disordered and grandiose in his delusions.
By chance a forensic psychiatric nurse was at the police station. She was able to access my client’s GP notes. She became aware of his referral to psychiatric services and spoke to him in person. We both advocated for a full mental health assessment, which was finally authorised.
This assessment couldn’t be completed within the 24-hour period of detention and the client was released without charge, a victory in itself, but also leaving him without the mental healthcare he should have received. His liberty was, in effect, withheld for 24 hours because he was suffering from a mental health disorder. His mother was asked to attend the police station and he was released into her care with a warning not to contact the alleged victim again.
How is it that we treat the most vulnerable in society with such appalling lack of sensitivity and care? Why would the idea that someone might be unwell rather than criminal be so strongly resisted? Have police stations become the new Bedlam?
As a legal aid lawyer paid under a regime of fixed fees for police station attendance, none of this effort was in my personal interest. In fact the nine hours that I spent dealing with this case meant my hourly rate dropped to less than £15 per hour. I am fortunate enough to be paid 50% more than many of my colleagues because of my experience and the relationships I have developed with firms who value quality advice. Under the old legal aid payment scheme I would have been paid two-thirds of the rate my firm could claim, resulting in £44 per hour. And the
government is cutting these rates by a further 8.75%.
Next time you hear the government wielding the terms fat-cat lawyers, and “efficient, effective legal services” think about the reality. Consider the likelihood of your lawyer being willing to go the distance for you. You might think, who cares, I’m not going to get arrested. I can tell you that I have heard the question, “Why have I been arrested? I haven’t done anything wrong,” only a few thousand times over the past 20 years.
Alternatively, you might want to consider if your best option might be paying privately, something I would never previously have advocated. I used to make fun of people who insisted on paying privately, knowing that there was no difference between the advice/engagement/effort they received by me, though I would swear less and hold their hand more. It pains me to say that I don’t know if I can honestly say this is true any more.
This is the reality of legal aid today.
