Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial
Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
Bonkers, yes, but I do a lot of work under the MHA and this guy lacks the element of danger to justify coercive action thereunder. He is a sad delusional Mitty type, but also a nasty perv.
Well I thing we can agree that he is bonkers. The lack of element of danger as you put it, can surely only be ascertained after an appropriate assessment, preferably undertaken by an approved (sec12) forensic psychiatrist. I suppose the point I'm making is that the Judge, at any time during the trial can issues a s35 or s36 order.
The MHA is pretty clear that the issue is not just of safety, but of health, and that allows for a pretty wide interpretation given that all that is required is that a psychiatrist considers there is reason to suspect that the defendant is suffering from a mental disorder.
With such evidence a section 35 order could be made.
Interesting statement from the regulator.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/...
Wouldn't surprise me if he appeals both convictions. If only he would seek help - then he might have a chance.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/media-centre/...
Wouldn't surprise me if he appeals both convictions. If only he would seek help - then he might have a chance.
maybe a political decision ? . so much of the establishment is being riddled with rumour, and evidence, of child related nausiati,that , maybe , there's becoming a real fear that the general public's respect for authority is approaching critical?
{ this is a theoretical flight for which i have no supporting evidence}
{ this is a theoretical flight for which i have no supporting evidence}
Breadvan72 said:
I am not impressed by the BSB's apparent position that the bomb hoax bust is more serious than the child porn bust. I can see no reason why Shrimpton was not suspended as soon as he was convicted of the child porn offence.
Both either way offences. 5 years max for the kiddie porn. 7 yrs for the bomb threat.
He was convicted of the indecent images in the mags - at which point he should have been suspended. Then, he appealed the conviction and was again convicted after trial in the crown court - at which point he most definitely should have been suspended - even if another appeal (JR?) is pending. He was this week convicted of the bomb hoax threat - the jury found that he "knew or believed" the information to be false, so there's an element of dishonesty. I note that the verdict was 11:1. Interesting. Very odd case. I suppose that I would have been looking some kind of medical defence - rather than his ludicrous Chewbacca defence.
He was convicted of the indecent images in the mags - at which point he should have been suspended. Then, he appealed the conviction and was again convicted after trial in the crown court - at which point he most definitely should have been suspended - even if another appeal (JR?) is pending. He was this week convicted of the bomb hoax threat - the jury found that he "knew or believed" the information to be false, so there's an element of dishonesty. I note that the verdict was 11:1. Interesting. Very odd case. I suppose that I would have been looking some kind of medical defence - rather than his ludicrous Chewbacca defence.
I agree that suspension should have followed the conviction in February, and as it is the BSB waited for almost a month since the appeal failed. Shrimpton would need insight into his mental illness to run a medical defence, but he appears from his net persona to be secure in his delusional self image as some sort of intelligence big wig.
Breadvan72 said:
I am not impressed by the BSB's apparent position that the bomb hoax bust is more serious than the child porn bust. I can see no reason why Shrimpton was not suspended as soon as he was convicted of the child porn offence.
Not sure about that. What relevance did the sexual offence have to his practice as long as he did not come into contact with children? The restrictions look to me to have been a proportionate response, albeit that the BSB could justifiably have gone further.Breadvan72 said:
The child porn conviction bears on the man's personal integrity, and brings the profession into disrepute.
I certainly agree re the latter but don't know enough to agree re integrity. I have no idea what drives a man to look at that kind of material, so it's difficult to know what it says about him other than that he is a pervert. I suppose that there may be sickos with integrity, but perhaps you are right that it is so morally repugnant that it calls into question the person's honesty, etc more generally. ORD said:
Breadvan72 said:
The child porn conviction bears on the man's personal integrity, and brings the profession into disrepute.
I certainly agree re the latter but don't know enough to agree re integrity. I have no idea what drives a man to look at that kind of material, so it's difficult to know what it says about him other than that he is a pervert. I suppose that there may be sickos with integrity, but perhaps you are right that it is so morally repugnant that it calls into question the person's honesty, etc more generally. I agree, it totally undermines the standing of the profession.
ORD said:
I certainly agree re the latter but don't know enough to agree re integrity. I have no idea what drives a man to look at that kind of material, so it's difficult to know what it says about him other than that he is a pervert. I suppose that there may be sickos with integrity, but perhaps you are right that it is so morally repugnant that it calls into question the person's honesty, etc more generally.
I'm not sure I'd like someone who regards compliance with the law as optional either proscecuting or defending me.eldar said:
I'm not sure I'd like someone who regards compliance with the law as optional either proscecuting or defending me.
I think it depends. Where do you draw the line? I wouldn't mind that a barrister defending me had points of speeding. Or even a charge for drunk & disorderly (etc) as a student.
Clearly child porn, assault, fraud, etc are all serious and are at the other extreme.
Breadvan72 said:
Bonkers, yes, but I do a lot of work under the MHA and this guy lacks the element of danger to justify coercive action thereunder. He is a sad delusional Mitty type, but also a nasty perv.
How would capacity be assessed pre-trial if accused would not voluntarily be assessed? IanA2 said:
See my post above, consent is not required for an assessment.
Right - this is a genuine question. How do you assess someone who doesn't want to be assessed? I only ask because I've had an "assessment" at a police station by a nurse after a CID officer decided to play silly buggers. I just sat there and told her she was boring me, and she should mind her own business. When I demanded to go back to my cell they just walked me back so I could have a sleep.
So is a refusal to engage with the system a sign of mental illness? If someone literally ignores you how can you possibly give an informed professional opinion?
Ian keeps missing the point that you cannot order an assessment unless you first have a medical opinion suggesting a mental problem. Moreover, it is rare to detain someone otherwise eligible for bail for an assessment. Liberty is not lightly to be curtailed.
Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
Breadvan72 said:
Ian keeps missing the point that you cannot order an assessment unless you first have a medical opinion suggesting a mental problem. Moreover, it is rare to detain someone otherwise eligible for bail for an assessment. Liberty is not lightly to be curtailed.
Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
Actually BV, I'm not missing the point, honest Guv. Forensic psychiatrists are used to non cooperating patients and do the best they can if the patient declines to talk.
Under Part I of the Act An assessment, can indeed be requested/undertaken at any point, via a court diversion officer for example. Under Part II of the Act a Judge may, by way of Sec 35, if:
(a) the court is satisfied, on the written or oral evidence of a registered medical practitioner, that there is reason to suspect that the accused person is suffering from mental disorder ;
and,
(b) the court is of the opinion that it would be impracticable for a report on his
mental condition to be made if he were remanded on bail.
Ref. Mental Health Act 2007: Guidance for the courts on remand and sentencing powers for mentally disordered offenders: http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/ment...
One way this works in practice is that the Judge asks the court diversion officer, for example, to whistle up a sec 12 medic, asks him to see person X, and to give a written/oral statement to the court. Then, if satisfied, the Judge can make the make the order.
Also, it need not necessarily be from a forensic psychiatrist. It can be any psychiatrist approved under s12. (unless of course it’s an MP, in which case Black Rod requests Sir Simon Wessely to appoint a suitable psychiatrist!) The civil process (ie diversion scheme), is not led by psychiatrists but usually by an approved mental health professional known as an AMHP's; (formerly ASW).
If I recall correctly, the Act is not absolutely prescriptive (unlike for example in the definition of who is a nearest relative) in who can request an assessment. I'm a wee bit rusty but I'm sure Richard Jones will cover it.
The issue of detention of these eligible for bail becomes an irrelevance if they are diverted pre-hearing, which happens, I suspect more often than than you imagine, but then you wouldn't see them. I don't have the figures to hand, and I do know that diversion schemes are a wee bit patchy, but I could ask Louis Appleby.
Declaration: I have forty years intermittent involvement, in varying guises, in the mental health field, and my wife is a consultant psychiatrist with many years experience of working in both the community and in prisons.
As ever, could be wrong.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff