Barrister with, er, "interesting" opinions to stand trial

[photosnob]

In which case Ian - going back to my question, how does your wife diagnose people who refuse to engage with the process? I know BV covered it - but I am unsure what exactly doing your best means.

I only ask, as I've heard horror stories of people being forces to stay in police stations/hospitals under the guise that if they don't engage with the system they must be unwell. However the people were telling me that - were let's just say more than capable of talking out of their bum. Criminals love to tell a tale when and say how they have been abused by the system.

[anonymous-user]

To detain someone for a shrink report is a drastic step. The law is rightly cautious about enforced medical interventions. In the present case, the CPS asked Shrimpton to undergo an assessment several months ago, but he just pooh poohed the suggestion, as it appears that he regards himself as perfectly sane, and possesses no insight into what to the rest of us looks (in our amateur opinions) like a delusional state of mind. It would have been quite a step for the Judge to force the issue at that stage.

If Shrimpton had any sense, and had been defended by someone else, he would have said that he was plainly off on one when he made the calls. I suspect that he may instead have antagonised the jury as his personal manner is intensely smug ad pompous (check out some youtubes of him giving talks to loonbat conspiracy wonks). The jury should not have convicted him, in my opinion, unless they thought he was deliberately trolling, but they may, being human, have been exasperated by his courtroom antics.

[Vaud]

Breadvan72 said:

The jury should not have convicted him, in my opinion, unless they thought he was deliberately trolling, but they may, being human, have been exasperated by his courtroom antics.

Off topic, but reminded me of this interchange from Yes Minister:


-- Yes, Prime Minister.
- And I want a conviction.
--We can try and trace the culprit, we can prosecute, but under our political system, there are problems about the government actually guaranteeing a conviction.
- Oh, surely. Little drinkie with the judge?
-- Unthinkable. There is no way any pressure can be placed on a judge.
- How does one secure a conviction?
-- Find a judge who won't need any pressure. A word with the Lord Chancellor. Find a judge who's hoping to be made a Lord of Appeal. Then leave justice to take her own impartial and majestic course.
- That does the trick?
-- Not always. Sometimes they're so obviously trying to convict, the jury acquits out of sheer bloody-mindedness.
- You need a judge with common sense.
-- Oh, yes.
- Won't be as easy as you make out.

[IanA2]

Breadvan72 said:

To detain someone for a shrink report is a drastic step. The law is rightly cautious about enforced medical interventions. In the present case, the CPS asked Shrimpton to undergo an assessment several months ago, but he just pooh poohed the suggestion, as it appears that he regards himself as perfectly sane, and possesses no insight into what to the rest of us looks (in our amateur opinions) like a delusional state of mind. It would have been quite a step for the Judge to force the issue at that stage.

If Shrimpton had any sense, and had been defended by someone else, he would have said that he was plainly off on one when he made the calls. I suspect that he may instead have antagonised the jury as his personal manner is intensely smug ad pompous (check out some youtubes of him giving talks to loonbat conspiracy wonks). The jury should not have convicted him, in my opinion, unless they thought he was deliberately trolling, but they may, being human, have been exasperated by his courtroom antics.

Well defended paranoid schizophrenics can be very difficult to identify, that's why a specialist needs to do the job. With respect, the Judge is not the correct specialist, and when it's as plain as a pikestaff to everybody else that the man's bonkers, his Lordship should, in my opinion, have sought the appropriate advice.

[IanA2]

photosnob said:

In which case Ian - going back to my question, how does your wife diagnose people who refuse to engage with the process? I know BV covered it - but I am unsure what exactly doing your best means.

I only ask, as I've heard horror stories of people being forces to stay in police stations/hospitals under the guise that if they don't engage with the system they must be unwell. However the people were telling me that - were let's just say more than capable of talking out of their bum. Criminals love to tell a tale when and say how they have been abused by the system.

It's a bit difficult to give a general reply to this. if you could give more specific examples I might be able to provide some clarity. One thing you can be sure of is that if there is any doubt about the safety of the team doing the assessment (usually a AHMP, a sec12 medic and the individual's GP) then it is quite usual for the police to be either present, or around the corner.

As to prisons, the MHA does not apply in prisons other than as a vehicle to transfers to and from prison and health facilities. No prisoner can be treated under the Act in prison (but common law does apply) although this is currently under review and would, in most sensible people's opinion, be a massively retrograde step slipping us into the world of Stalinist psychiatric labour camps called hospitals.

[anonymous-user]

You talk of Stalinism, but would be content for Shrimpton to be detained before conviction in order to be seen by a shrink. There is no evidence that this nutter is a dangerous nutter. He may pose a threat to children, but that is another matter.

[IanA2]

Breadvan72 said:

You talk of Stalinism, but would be content for Shrimpton to be detained before conviction in order to be seen by a shrink. There is no evidence that this nutter is a dangerous nutter. He may pose a threat to children, but that is another matter.

I think I covered dangerousness before.

My reference to Stalinism was in respect of the proposed changes to the law to allow treatment in prisons. By any reasonable measure this a massively retrograde step and one that would bring us closer to the Stalinist psychiatric prisons where people were treated in order to adjust their anti-state beliefs. I do wonder how long you would last in one of Uncle Joe's holiday camps.

With respect, people regardless of their alleged crimes, are entitled to treatment, and if that means removing them from the legal process and taking them to a place of safety, a hospital, for an assessment of their condition and needs then so be it. This is far from Stalinist.

Yes, I do think that is preferable to being put through a process when too bonkers to admit, to have the insight, that help is needed.

Let's resurrect this thread in eighteen months and see if the chap we are talking about is still in prison, or has been transferred to hospital.

[anonymous-user]

He should have been jailed for the child porn. To jail him or hospitalise him for his spy fantasies would be absurd.

[IanA2]

Breadvan72 said:

He should have been jailed for the child porn. To jail him or hospitalise him for his spy fantasies would be absurd.

Actually, they were delusions, an important distinction.

Regardless of any offences, however heinous, if he needs treatment he is entitled to receive treatment. That is the morally ethical response and as far as I understand it, the current and civilised position.

I once had this debate with the late, and in my view great, Stephen Tumim and we were in agreement.

[anonymous-user]

Treatment, yes, detention, no. The medical view often overlooks basic civil liberties, as in the recent case of the sick child and the arrest warrant debacle.

Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 28th November 15:08

[BlackLabel]

"A BARRISTER who claimed Nazi spies were planning to attack the London Olympic opening ceremony with a stolen Russian nuclear bomb has been jailed for a year.

Michael Shrimpton made the hoax phone call just months before the opening ceremony of the 2012 Olympics."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...

[anonymous-user]

Well, it's twelve months in Der Cooler for the wannabe scourge of secret made up Nazi spy rings. I expect that the poor loon will now be ausgestrucken by the BSB.

[agtlaw]

The BSB's publication of record (Legal Cheek) has reported:

http://www.legalcheek.com/2015/02/breaking-news-na...

[photosnob]

Locking up a mentally ill person, for being mentally ill. Nice.

Next time they complain about cuts or overcrowding in prisons this should be pointed out. He made up a stupid story - he didn't hurt anyone.

[ivanhoew]

oh great! thanks a lot gerard ,

now i have the 'COOLER....TVENTY DAIZ' quote from the great escape in my mind ,

and it will probably take till monday to go away !!

[IanA2]

photosnob said:

Locking up a mentally ill person, for being mentally ill. Nice.

Next time they complain about cuts or overcrowding in prisons this should be pointed out. He made up a stupid story - he didn't hurt anyone.

A huge number of people in prison are there because of the failure of "community care". The MHA does not apply in prisons for purpose of treatment, and most prison psychiatric services are massively under resourced and over stretched. Suicides in prison are on the rise, Louis Appleby recently reported that they are at the highest for many years. Self harm figures for prisoners, particularly women, are frightening, many are very serious. On the upside, any death in prison is routinely investigated by the Prison Probation Ombudsman whereas deaths of detained patients under the MHA are not routinely independantly investigated. There were 3810 such deaths in the period 1999 to 2009.

[photosnob]

IanA2 said:

A huge number of people in prison are there because of the failure of "community care". The MHA does not apply in prisons for purpose of treatment, and most prison psychiatric services are massively under resourced and over stretched. Suicides in prison are on the rise, Louis Appleby recently reported that they are at the highest for many years. Self harm figures for prisoners, particularly women, are frightening, many are very serious. On the upside, any death in prison is routinely investigated by the Prison Probation Ombudsman whereas deaths of detained patients under the MHA are not routinely independantly investigated. There were 3810 such deaths in the period 1999 to 2009.

Thanks. Unfortunately I know a fair bit about people being in prison who shouldn't be. And I'm not talking about those who are innocent. They are prey and are primed to be bullied and victimised. There is not enough support to look after them.

What annoys me the most about this type of case - is that there is no reason to lock him up! He made up a stupid story. Now if he had shoved a knife into someones neck I could understand them having to do something. But he made up a ridiculous story.

I'm cynical about it all - recently I read about the case where a women killed herself after being told she was being charged with making up a rape allegation. From what I read there was some pretty compelling evidence to say that this was the right call. But the Police and CPS couldn't jump up and down fast enough to say they didn't think she should have been charged. I agree - those who are ill shouldn't be subject to criminal prosecution except in rare cases. However she allegedly made up an allegation that could have ruined someones life - this bloke claimed the spies were out to end the world. I don't like politics getting into the justice system either.

[anonymous-user]

Some more details here

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...

Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.

[IanA2]

Breadvan72 said:

Some more details here

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...

Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.

Agreed, and a further drain on the public purse.

[photosnob]

IanA2 said:

Breadvan72 said:

Some more details here

http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/barrister-jailed-f...

Prison seems harsh and pointless in this instance.

Agreed, and a further drain on the public purse.

It's not about the money. Locking someone in a cage is inhumane. It should be reserved for when it's needed. And when it's done you should actually attempt to help and rehabilitate people rather than just locking them up pointlessly.

Everyone who is pro prisons has never been to one - or has never known anyone locked up inside them. Nothing good comes from prison. Nothing. When people are subjected to it for stupidity, mistakes or because of mental illness we should be ashamed.