M, R (on the application of) v Kingston Crown Court
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
- MR JUSTICE OUSELEY
- MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS
Areas of Law
- Criminal Law and Procedure
- Mental Health Law
2014
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
UK
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In a case involving a serious assault committed by a 17-year-old defendant, HHJ Hopmeier QC ordered the defendant to be remanded to hospital for a psychiatric report under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The order was challenged, and Mr. Justice Ouseley quashed it, stating that section 35 does not allow for an order to obtain evidence for use in a trial. The decision was supported by MR JUSTICE GRIFFITH WILLIAMS.
J U D G M E N T
R E P O R T I N G R E S T R I C T I O N S
MR JUSTICE OUSELEY: On 25 June 2014, His Honour Judge Hopmeier QC, sitting at Kingston Crown Court, made an order under section 35 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in respect of the defendant in a forthcoming criminal trial. He made an order that the defendant be remanded to hospital, on the face of it for a report to be made on the defendant's mental condition. Following an overnight application, an order was made by Carr J on 26 June 2014, by which this court is hearing a rolled-up application challenging that decision. Between times she made an order suspending the effect of the order of His Honour Judge Hopmeier QC so that the defendant for the moment is on bail.
The making of the order arises in this way. The claimant committed a serious assault in July 2013, the details of which for this purpose do not matter. I am cautious about what I say, not merely because there is an order in force protecting the anonymity of the claimant, but nothing is to be reported which means that he may be identified. The circumstances of the offence, if publicised, would make his identification easier.
The claimant is now just 17. In October 2013, he pleaded guilty to an offence under section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 . The Crown has not accepted that as concluding the matter, and for present purposes intends to proceed with a charge under section 18 of that Act. The issue in that trial will be intent and capability of forming intent. That trial is due to start on 18 August 2014, with a fallback date, in the event that the in-patient assessment under HHJ Hopmeier's order proceeds, in October.
The position in relation to psychiatric and psychological evidence is this. The commission of the offence led to a report being obtained from a consultant psychiatrist, Dr Pipe, by the defendant, and there have been, through the passage of time, a total of six reports prepared relating to his mental condition. One has been prepared by a forensic psychiatrist, one by Dr Bester and two by Dr Williams, another forensic psychiatrist. They have concluded that the claimant was suffering from a psychotic illness characterised by delusions regarding the victim of the alleged offence, and with command hallucinations. Not all the details of the condition are necessarily crucial to the defence, but they are nonetheless part of the defence psychiatrists' diagnosis.
The prosecution has served three reports, in each