Dear All,
On Thursday last week, the Court of Appeal handed down their judgment in respect of our Appeal against the High Court's decision to refuse Permission for a Judicial Review of the Coroner's inquest after my mother's death.
Although the judgment will be an important one, their Lordships, headed by Lord Justice Dyson, refused the Appeal based on a very narrow interpretation of the law and facts. The judgment can be found online here: BAILII.
Importantly, they rejected the High Court's judgment that the duty to investigate a potential breach of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged. Indeed, they found that it was, and will now be engaged in all future cases of deaths in mental health detention.
Yet, they decided that the scope of such an inquiry was not very broad, and decided to limit this to those things which were arguable causative of death. They decided not to take into account the systemic failings which we alleged were occurring when my mother died, and instead chose to limit their judgment to finding that "nothing could have been done" to save my mother's life.
We think they have missed the point.
To simply reduce all the matters to a set of distinct failings - which they accepted were unacceptable - meant that the Court of Appeal has failed to understand the nature of the systemic failings that led to my mother's death. A key aspect of all inquests is to ensure that wrongs can be righted, and to protect future people from such situations occurring again.
Without a new and broader inquiry, taking into account the systemic failings in my mother's case, over 300 patients a year will continue to die while complusorily detained under the Mental Health Act. Lessons will continue to remain unlearnt. Mental health patients will continue to be unsafe, and future deaths will continue to be dealt with in a cursory manner. This is unacceptale in modern-day Britain.
My family and I are currently in the process of preparing our grounds to Petition the House of Lords for Permission to Appeal this latest, narrow judgment. We believe that the Court of Appeal are effectively saying that even though Article 2 was engaged, this means very little for the investigation of the deaths of mental health detention. This is surely wrong and is of significant public concern.
Juries currently hear inquests of all deaths that occur in custody. These inquests are generally broader, and usually take account of potential and alleged systemic failings. All we are asking for is the equal treatment of the deaths of mental health patients.
Unfortunately, it appears that legal aid may not be available for my family to continue our battle in the courts. We are likely, therefore, to have to deal with this final stage of the British courts systems ourselves. The fight for justice up to now has been long and hard, yet we believe that to discontinue now would be to give up. The implications for people across the country are too broad, and the case too complex, to make such a decision lightly, but we believe it is the only way to bring to light the shocking discrimination faced by mental health patients day in, day out.
This week, an average of 7 people will die whilst detained in mental health institutions in England and Wales. It is in their name, and the name of my mother, that we will continue to strive for justice.
Tuesday, 30 June 2009
Thursday, 18 June 2009
Legal Developments
The Appeal
The long-awaited hearing at the Court of Appeal finally took place last week, considering my family's application for a Judicial Review of the Coroner's investigation of my mother's death. After the procedural mishaps and the negative judgments in the High Court, signs were much more positive from the outset of the hearing before three of the most senior Lord Justices of Appeal in the country.
Back in September last year, Lord Justice Blake presided over an oral hearing to consider whether our application for a Judicial Review should be granted Permission to be heard. He refused to grant Permission, arguing that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged by the circumstances of my mother's death, and that, even if it was, the inquest had to be 'fundamentally flawed' before a fresh inquest could be ordered.
Without our barrister even having to argue against these two points, the Master of the Queen's Bench Division, who presided over the Appeal, provisionally indicated that Lord Justice Blake was wrong on both counts. This means that, for the first time since my mother died, the judicial system has accepted that the deaths of compulsorily detained mental health patients are subjected to a broad investigation under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Neither the Mental Health Trust nor the Coroner chose to be represented at the Appeal. Having indicated that Permission should have been granted for the Judicial Review to be heard, the next two hours of legal submissions by our family's barrister focused on why the original inquest should be overturned, particularly focusing on why it didn't meet the Article 2 requirements.
The Coroner, Dr. Reid, was roundly criticised for failing to hear key evidence on the policies and procedures in place at the time of my mother's deaths, including the failure of staff to be adequately trained in basic life support. In the absence of lawyers for the Trust or the Coroner, the bench challenged my family's legal submissions by suggesting that, even though the Coroner said that the Human Rights Act did not apply, the inquest may have been substantively compliant with the Article 2 requirements. Our barrister argued not only did it not comply with these requirements, but that it was lacking as a simple inquest.
The Court of Appeal then decided to Reserve Judgement and we are now eagerly awaiting their decision. The judgement, whatever way it falls, will be important in all future cases relating to deaths in mental health institutions. If the Appeal is granted, then a fresh inquest will then have to take place. If it is not, we believe that we have strong grounds for a further Appeal to the House of Lords, though obviously we hope that this is not necessary. Of course, details of the judgment will be posted here as soon as it becomes available.
And, after almost three years since my mother died, we found that that was not the only important development.
Coroners and Justice Bill - House of Lords
On the same day as the Appeal took place, the House of Lords moved onto its second day considering the complete overhaul of the Coroners system which has been outlined in the Coroners and Justice Bill.
In an excellent Amendment tabled by Baroness Murphy, she strongly argued that juries should be called in all cases where the deceased was detained or in the custody of the state.
The current position is that all cases of deaths that occur in custody, and those which potentially have future implications for the health and safety of the public, must be heard before juries. Yet, in manoeuvres which have been roundly condemned by human rights campaigners and charities alike, the Government wishes to make juries in these cases further limited, by arguing that not all require such a high level of public scrutiny.
Hitting back at this appalling viewpoint, Baroness Murphy spoke about my mother's death in detail, arguing that the public cannot have confidence in the state if the remote figure of coroner is allowed to hear such inquests on their own. Supported by a number of other members in the House, the central importance of juries in our judicial system was passionately argued for over an hour.
Yet, the Government refused to accept that such cases should be heard before juries, arguing that it was sufficient to leave such decisions up to Coroners themselves, and suggesting that the most important consideration was cost. Lord Davies and Lord Bach, the two Ministers responsible for the Bill, simply refused to respond to the points about the moral case for juries to be called.
In light of this, Baroness Murphy withdrew her Amendment, biding time to make an even stronger case for juries based on real figures, to be tabled again at the next opportunity when the Bill is being considered. I am currently working hard on producing a further briefing for members of the Lords to deal with these issues, to strengthen the case for juries to be called, and to highlight the complete inadequacy of the Government's position on this issue.
I shall, of course, put the briefing up here and will be asking for your support again in contacting members of the Lords to argue for this Amendment to the Bill. My family and I strongly believe that the deaths of people with mental illness have not been taken seriously enough - as my mother's case has shown - and that enough is enough.
Once again, thanks again to those of you who continue to stay engaged in this important campaign for justice.
The long-awaited hearing at the Court of Appeal finally took place last week, considering my family's application for a Judicial Review of the Coroner's investigation of my mother's death. After the procedural mishaps and the negative judgments in the High Court, signs were much more positive from the outset of the hearing before three of the most senior Lord Justices of Appeal in the country.
Back in September last year, Lord Justice Blake presided over an oral hearing to consider whether our application for a Judicial Review should be granted Permission to be heard. He refused to grant Permission, arguing that Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not engaged by the circumstances of my mother's death, and that, even if it was, the inquest had to be 'fundamentally flawed' before a fresh inquest could be ordered.
Without our barrister even having to argue against these two points, the Master of the Queen's Bench Division, who presided over the Appeal, provisionally indicated that Lord Justice Blake was wrong on both counts. This means that, for the first time since my mother died, the judicial system has accepted that the deaths of compulsorily detained mental health patients are subjected to a broad investigation under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Neither the Mental Health Trust nor the Coroner chose to be represented at the Appeal. Having indicated that Permission should have been granted for the Judicial Review to be heard, the next two hours of legal submissions by our family's barrister focused on why the original inquest should be overturned, particularly focusing on why it didn't meet the Article 2 requirements.
The Coroner, Dr. Reid, was roundly criticised for failing to hear key evidence on the policies and procedures in place at the time of my mother's deaths, including the failure of staff to be adequately trained in basic life support. In the absence of lawyers for the Trust or the Coroner, the bench challenged my family's legal submissions by suggesting that, even though the Coroner said that the Human Rights Act did not apply, the inquest may have been substantively compliant with the Article 2 requirements. Our barrister argued not only did it not comply with these requirements, but that it was lacking as a simple inquest.
The Court of Appeal then decided to Reserve Judgement and we are now eagerly awaiting their decision. The judgement, whatever way it falls, will be important in all future cases relating to deaths in mental health institutions. If the Appeal is granted, then a fresh inquest will then have to take place. If it is not, we believe that we have strong grounds for a further Appeal to the House of Lords, though obviously we hope that this is not necessary. Of course, details of the judgment will be posted here as soon as it becomes available.
And, after almost three years since my mother died, we found that that was not the only important development.
Coroners and Justice Bill - House of Lords
On the same day as the Appeal took place, the House of Lords moved onto its second day considering the complete overhaul of the Coroners system which has been outlined in the Coroners and Justice Bill.
In an excellent Amendment tabled by Baroness Murphy, she strongly argued that juries should be called in all cases where the deceased was detained or in the custody of the state.
The current position is that all cases of deaths that occur in custody, and those which potentially have future implications for the health and safety of the public, must be heard before juries. Yet, in manoeuvres which have been roundly condemned by human rights campaigners and charities alike, the Government wishes to make juries in these cases further limited, by arguing that not all require such a high level of public scrutiny.
Hitting back at this appalling viewpoint, Baroness Murphy spoke about my mother's death in detail, arguing that the public cannot have confidence in the state if the remote figure of coroner is allowed to hear such inquests on their own. Supported by a number of other members in the House, the central importance of juries in our judicial system was passionately argued for over an hour.
Yet, the Government refused to accept that such cases should be heard before juries, arguing that it was sufficient to leave such decisions up to Coroners themselves, and suggesting that the most important consideration was cost. Lord Davies and Lord Bach, the two Ministers responsible for the Bill, simply refused to respond to the points about the moral case for juries to be called.
In light of this, Baroness Murphy withdrew her Amendment, biding time to make an even stronger case for juries based on real figures, to be tabled again at the next opportunity when the Bill is being considered. I am currently working hard on producing a further briefing for members of the Lords to deal with these issues, to strengthen the case for juries to be called, and to highlight the complete inadequacy of the Government's position on this issue.
I shall, of course, put the briefing up here and will be asking for your support again in contacting members of the Lords to argue for this Amendment to the Bill. My family and I strongly believe that the deaths of people with mental illness have not been taken seriously enough - as my mother's case has shown - and that enough is enough.
Once again, thanks again to those of you who continue to stay engaged in this important campaign for justice.
Monday, 8 June 2009
Important Developments - Court of Appeal and Coroners Bill
There have been a couple of important developments over the last couple of weeks both in the Court of Appeal case and in the passage of the Coroners and Justice Bill.
In the case, we found out that the hearing which was ordered by Lady Justice Arden earlier this year had included a misdirection for only the matter relating to Permission for the Judicial Review to be heard. On further analysis, the Court found that it could also hear the substantive issue of the Judicial Review, namely whether or not a new inquest should take place, and this has today been ordered by Lord Justice Dyson, who will also be one of the judges to hear the case.
The hearing has been ordered to take place this Wednesday at the Court of Appeal. This means that the long battle by our family to have some of the issues relating to my mum's death will be, for the first time, argued in detail before some of the most senior members of the judiciary.
The Mental Health Trust has informed the Court that it will not be sending representation, presumably because they are washing their hands of the case or are writing off our chances. This sort of behaviour is, however, par for the course with the Trust and we will put forward a compelling argument for a full inquiry into their actions on Wednesday.
Please feel free to attend Court on Wednesday if you are free and willing. The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in central London at a time to be decided by the end of tomorrow and attendees are allowed to sit in the public gallery.
The Coroners and Justice Bill
In another important development, a list of Amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill have been published and can be found online here - Parliament website. The Committee Stage in the Lords, which will begin tomorrow (9th June) and continue on Wednesday 10th, and also 23rd, is an opportunity for proposed Amendments to be debated and voted on.
Baroness Murphy, in an inauspicious but important Amendment, has called for lines 22-24 to be removed from the Bill. Effectively, this Amendment aims to remove the limitations on the calling of juries in the cases of people dying in state detention or custody. If the Amendment is successful juries would automatically be called in all such cases, in line with the calls that have been made by many of you, I and charities including Liberty and Black Mental Health. Many thanks to all of you who have been so active on this issue.
Anyone who wishes to attend the Committee should be able to get access to the public gallery of the House of Lords, and I will try to be there tomorrow too. Do let me know if you intend to come along by email - steven.allen -at- gmail.com.
In the case, we found out that the hearing which was ordered by Lady Justice Arden earlier this year had included a misdirection for only the matter relating to Permission for the Judicial Review to be heard. On further analysis, the Court found that it could also hear the substantive issue of the Judicial Review, namely whether or not a new inquest should take place, and this has today been ordered by Lord Justice Dyson, who will also be one of the judges to hear the case.
The hearing has been ordered to take place this Wednesday at the Court of Appeal. This means that the long battle by our family to have some of the issues relating to my mum's death will be, for the first time, argued in detail before some of the most senior members of the judiciary.
The Mental Health Trust has informed the Court that it will not be sending representation, presumably because they are washing their hands of the case or are writing off our chances. This sort of behaviour is, however, par for the course with the Trust and we will put forward a compelling argument for a full inquiry into their actions on Wednesday.
Please feel free to attend Court on Wednesday if you are free and willing. The hearing will take place at the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand in central London at a time to be decided by the end of tomorrow and attendees are allowed to sit in the public gallery.
The Coroners and Justice Bill
In another important development, a list of Amendments to the Coroners and Justice Bill have been published and can be found online here - Parliament website. The Committee Stage in the Lords, which will begin tomorrow (9th June) and continue on Wednesday 10th, and also 23rd, is an opportunity for proposed Amendments to be debated and voted on.
Baroness Murphy, in an inauspicious but important Amendment, has called for lines 22-24 to be removed from the Bill. Effectively, this Amendment aims to remove the limitations on the calling of juries in the cases of people dying in state detention or custody. If the Amendment is successful juries would automatically be called in all such cases, in line with the calls that have been made by many of you, I and charities including Liberty and Black Mental Health. Many thanks to all of you who have been so active on this issue.
Anyone who wishes to attend the Committee should be able to get access to the public gallery of the House of Lords, and I will try to be there tomorrow too. Do let me know if you intend to come along by email - steven.allen -at- gmail.com.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
New Letter for Lobbying the Lords
Dear All,
You can use the following letter to continue Lobbying the Lords. I've updated it and made it to reflect Lord Patel's contribution to the debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill on Monday. Many thanks for the support so many of you have shown in getting this Amendment to happen.
You can email the letter to Members of the Lords by visiting www.writetothem.com/lords. More background information can be found in the briefing I prepared which can be found here - Coroners and Justice Bill Briefing.
====TEMPLATE LETTER====
Dear xxx,
Coroners and Justice Bill - Investigating the Deaths of Mental Health Patients
I am writing to you personally to draw your attention to Section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Bill which outlines the cases in which it is proposed that a jury will be called to hear inquests.
I believe it is necessary to strengthen the clause to make sure that all deaths of mental health patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are automatically heard before juries. Mental health patients are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and, particularly when they die whilst detained, there is a strong moral obligation on the part of the state to investigate their deaths.
The massively complex nature of psychiatric institutions mean that the deaths of mental health patients need to be investigated independently and impartially to ensure that families can have confidence in the system. Systems, procedures and the acts of individuals must be properly scrutinised and the requirement that a jury is present will not only prove that justice is being done, but that it is also being seen to be done.
Juries have consistently been shown to improve the confidence of public in our system of justice. That is why I am asking you to support an Amendment proposed by Lord Patel and Baroness Murphy to Section 7 of the Bill, requiring that juries are automatically called in these cases. Investigations into deaths in custody are currently heard before juries but Section 7 seeks to place a limit on this too - I hope you will support the case that juries must be a requirement in these inquests too.
The Bill will next be debated at the Committee Stage which is currently scheduled for the 9th and 10th June. I do hope that you will be present and feel able to support this important Amendment.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this pressing matter of justice.
Yours sincerely,
xxxxx
You can use the following letter to continue Lobbying the Lords. I've updated it and made it to reflect Lord Patel's contribution to the debate on the Coroners and Justice Bill on Monday. Many thanks for the support so many of you have shown in getting this Amendment to happen.
You can email the letter to Members of the Lords by visiting www.writetothem.com/lords. More background information can be found in the briefing I prepared which can be found here - Coroners and Justice Bill Briefing.
====TEMPLATE LETTER====
Dear xxx,
Coroners and Justice Bill - Investigating the Deaths of Mental Health Patients
I am writing to you personally to draw your attention to Section 7 of the Coroners and Justice Bill which outlines the cases in which it is proposed that a jury will be called to hear inquests.
I believe it is necessary to strengthen the clause to make sure that all deaths of mental health patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 are automatically heard before juries. Mental health patients are some of the most vulnerable people in our society and, particularly when they die whilst detained, there is a strong moral obligation on the part of the state to investigate their deaths.
The massively complex nature of psychiatric institutions mean that the deaths of mental health patients need to be investigated independently and impartially to ensure that families can have confidence in the system. Systems, procedures and the acts of individuals must be properly scrutinised and the requirement that a jury is present will not only prove that justice is being done, but that it is also being seen to be done.
Juries have consistently been shown to improve the confidence of public in our system of justice. That is why I am asking you to support an Amendment proposed by Lord Patel and Baroness Murphy to Section 7 of the Bill, requiring that juries are automatically called in these cases. Investigations into deaths in custody are currently heard before juries but Section 7 seeks to place a limit on this too - I hope you will support the case that juries must be a requirement in these inquests too.
The Bill will next be debated at the Committee Stage which is currently scheduled for the 9th and 10th June. I do hope that you will be present and feel able to support this important Amendment.
I look forward to hearing your opinions on this pressing matter of justice.
Yours sincerely,
xxxxx
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The Coroners and Justice Bill - Lords to move amendment
In a debate that lasted over 6 hours yesterday in the House of Lords on the provisions of the huge Coroners and Justice Bill, the case that juries should be automatically called to hear inquests into the deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act received support from Lord Patel, who also spoke on behalf of Baroness Murphy.
The Coroners and Justice Bill is a huge piece of legislation which, among other matters, seeks to: overhaul the coroners court system, amend the defences to charges of murder, create new rules about the investigation of findings of treasure, amend the Information Act and its enforcement provisions, regulate profiteering of criminals by their memoirs, clarify the laws on assisted suicide and regulate the internet on this, clamp down on 'pseudo'-photos of children and paedopilia, amend the legal aid provisions, set up a new regime of criminal sentence guidelines, amend the rules of evidence to give witnesses to crime greater anonymity, introduce new offences of hate speech in relation to homosexuality, deal with the position of suspected war criminals, and regulate conditional fee arrangements in employment law cases amongst other things. (No, I'm not joking!)
The breadth of the Bill was roundly criticised by members from all sides of the house of Lords as, amongst other things, a 'rag bag Bill', a 'Christmas tree Bill, some of the baubles of which will undoubtedly fall of,' and by Lord Ramsbothan in the following terms:
"My Lords, as I read through this monster Bill I had an image of a civil servant going round the Ministry of Justice pushing a trolley and shouting, “Bring out your dead!”, and people putting in it any old scrap of legislation that had anything to do with the word “justice”. Coroners were the first, and all the rest came later."
Yet, its importance in respect of overhauling the coroners system cannot be understated and, in this vein, Lord Ramsbotham made an impassioned plea that the rights of families are placed in the centre of the debate about the reforms.
Lord Patel made the case about juries being called where the person died whilst under the provisions of the Mental Health Act:
"Another problem is that the Bill withdraws the requirement for inquests into deaths in custody to be heard automatically before a jury. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has extensive experience of inquiry panels into the deaths of detained patients in special hospitals for mentally disordered offenders and in NHS mental health units, and she will be greatly concerned about this part of the Bill. Again, I believe that there will be amendments to explore this further in Committee.
The Bill provides that deaths in custody and detention will be heard before juries only if one of a limited set of circumstances is satisfied. This is not sufficient to ensure that such deaths are fully and independently investigated or to give the public the confidence that justice is being done. Deaths that occur in state detention are often complex and may require the detailed scrutiny of systems and procedures as well as of individual acts, and these cases are always best dealt with by juries." [emphasis added]
The Bill will now go to a Committee of the entire House of Lords on 9th and 10th June, a crucial point when the amendment can be made.
I would like to thank all those of you who wrote to members of the House of Lords in advance of the debate and in support of my proposition that juries should automatically be called. It is undeniably a simple question of morality and the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society; as Lord Patel points out, just must be seen to be done in these cases.
The proposition is not simply a point of morality, however, it is based on experience. The coroner investigating my mother's death, as I've previously explained, was responsible for a miscarriage of justice in refusing to hear the significant systemic failures that lead to my mother's death whilst in hospital. My family had no lawyers and the coroner at complete liberty to disregard all of our well-evidenced allegations, even choosing to disapply the Human Rights Act.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Families do not expect their loved-ones to go into hospital, suffering from mental health problems, and die in the first place. Where they do, it is simply unjust to say that a coroner has the authority to entirely disregard unrepresented families' representations, often where there will be extremely difficult issues to deal with such as the complex nature of mental health institutions.
Juries are thus vital to ensure not only that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done. Remote judicial figues sitting on their own cannot discharge this legitimate need and juries will give families the confidence that normal citizens are able to properly scruitinize the actions of the state.
Please keep writing to members of the Lords to support this amendment at Committee stage: you can email individual members directly at http://www.writetothem.com/lords.
Many kind wishes to you all,
Steven
The Coroners and Justice Bill is a huge piece of legislation which, among other matters, seeks to: overhaul the coroners court system, amend the defences to charges of murder, create new rules about the investigation of findings of treasure, amend the Information Act and its enforcement provisions, regulate profiteering of criminals by their memoirs, clarify the laws on assisted suicide and regulate the internet on this, clamp down on 'pseudo'-photos of children and paedopilia, amend the legal aid provisions, set up a new regime of criminal sentence guidelines, amend the rules of evidence to give witnesses to crime greater anonymity, introduce new offences of hate speech in relation to homosexuality, deal with the position of suspected war criminals, and regulate conditional fee arrangements in employment law cases amongst other things. (No, I'm not joking!)
The breadth of the Bill was roundly criticised by members from all sides of the house of Lords as, amongst other things, a 'rag bag Bill', a 'Christmas tree Bill, some of the baubles of which will undoubtedly fall of,' and by Lord Ramsbothan in the following terms:
"My Lords, as I read through this monster Bill I had an image of a civil servant going round the Ministry of Justice pushing a trolley and shouting, “Bring out your dead!”, and people putting in it any old scrap of legislation that had anything to do with the word “justice”. Coroners were the first, and all the rest came later."
Yet, its importance in respect of overhauling the coroners system cannot be understated and, in this vein, Lord Ramsbotham made an impassioned plea that the rights of families are placed in the centre of the debate about the reforms.
Lord Patel made the case about juries being called where the person died whilst under the provisions of the Mental Health Act:
"Another problem is that the Bill withdraws the requirement for inquests into deaths in custody to be heard automatically before a jury. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, has extensive experience of inquiry panels into the deaths of detained patients in special hospitals for mentally disordered offenders and in NHS mental health units, and she will be greatly concerned about this part of the Bill. Again, I believe that there will be amendments to explore this further in Committee.
The Bill provides that deaths in custody and detention will be heard before juries only if one of a limited set of circumstances is satisfied. This is not sufficient to ensure that such deaths are fully and independently investigated or to give the public the confidence that justice is being done. Deaths that occur in state detention are often complex and may require the detailed scrutiny of systems and procedures as well as of individual acts, and these cases are always best dealt with by juries." [emphasis added]
The Bill will now go to a Committee of the entire House of Lords on 9th and 10th June, a crucial point when the amendment can be made.
I would like to thank all those of you who wrote to members of the House of Lords in advance of the debate and in support of my proposition that juries should automatically be called. It is undeniably a simple question of morality and the protection of the most vulnerable people in our society; as Lord Patel points out, just must be seen to be done in these cases.
The proposition is not simply a point of morality, however, it is based on experience. The coroner investigating my mother's death, as I've previously explained, was responsible for a miscarriage of justice in refusing to hear the significant systemic failures that lead to my mother's death whilst in hospital. My family had no lawyers and the coroner at complete liberty to disregard all of our well-evidenced allegations, even choosing to disapply the Human Rights Act.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Families do not expect their loved-ones to go into hospital, suffering from mental health problems, and die in the first place. Where they do, it is simply unjust to say that a coroner has the authority to entirely disregard unrepresented families' representations, often where there will be extremely difficult issues to deal with such as the complex nature of mental health institutions.
Juries are thus vital to ensure not only that justice is done, but that justice is seen to be done. Remote judicial figues sitting on their own cannot discharge this legitimate need and juries will give families the confidence that normal citizens are able to properly scruitinize the actions of the state.
Please keep writing to members of the Lords to support this amendment at Committee stage: you can email individual members directly at http://www.writetothem.com/lords.
Many kind wishes to you all,
Steven
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
Changing the Law
Dear All,
Following interest from a number of Lords, I have put together a Briefing Document arguing the case that s.7 of the Coroenrs and Justice Bill should be amended to ensure that all inquests into deaths of people in custody and state detention (including mental health patients) should automatically be heard before a jury.
Please feel free to use this in your own lobbying of the Lords too. The next reading of the Bill is due to take place in the Lords next Monday (18th May) and it would be fantastic if we could get an amendment proposed by then.
The briefing document can be found online here - Lords Briefing. (Click on the picture of the document, and on the next page choose 'download' where you can choose which type of document you want). Please let me know if you have any successes - as always, my email address is steven.allen -at- gmail.com.
Many kind wishes for you continuing support of this campaign.
Steven
Following interest from a number of Lords, I have put together a Briefing Document arguing the case that s.7 of the Coroenrs and Justice Bill should be amended to ensure that all inquests into deaths of people in custody and state detention (including mental health patients) should automatically be heard before a jury.
Please feel free to use this in your own lobbying of the Lords too. The next reading of the Bill is due to take place in the Lords next Monday (18th May) and it would be fantastic if we could get an amendment proposed by then.
The briefing document can be found online here - Lords Briefing. (Click on the picture of the document, and on the next page choose 'download' where you can choose which type of document you want). Please let me know if you have any successes - as always, my email address is steven.allen -at- gmail.com.
Many kind wishes for you continuing support of this campaign.
Steven
Friday, 8 May 2009
Appeal to go ahead and Coroner's Bill
Although it has been some time since I have updated the blog, the case has been progressing and we can now announce that permission to appeal has been granted and that the appeal will go ahead on either 10th or 11th June. The case will be heard by the Master of the Queen's Bench Division and two senior judges who will decide whether the refusal of the High Court to grant a full Judicial Review was correct.
It has taken a considerable amount of time for us to get to this point, largely because of court delays. With the third anniversary of my mother's death approaching in November, we hope that it will not be another anniversary where we are left with the legal system grinding on without any end in sight.
Even if our appeal is successful, it would only mean that the case would then be sent back to the High Court to enable a full Judicial Review hearing to take place, a process which could again take months. Yet, my family and I remain entirely committed to pursuing our legal rights and bringing to light the appalling circumstances of my mother's death.
The Mental Health Trust has said that it will not take part in the Appeal as there has 'already been significant public expenditure' on this case. Whilst we have no desire to deal with the Mental Health Trust ourselves, we think the way they have approached the case thus far has been appalling, especially with regards to the delaying tactics they have employed in disclosing vital information.
The new evidence that came to light from the full disclosure of my mother's medical records turned out to be vital, and yet they have attempted to rely on these delays to suggest that the case should now lapse due to the 'passage of time'. Of course, we refuse to be insulted in this way and even the High Court judge was unimpressed with this ridiculous argument.
The Coroner's and Justice Bill is still going through Parliament and is currently awaiting the Lords 2nd Reading before a Committee and Report stage when it will become law. The duty to hold inquests in front of juries where the deceased was in detention or custody prior to death has failed to be amended to become automatic, meaning only deaths of a violent or unnatural nature will be investigated in this way. My family and I believe this will fail to take into account systemic problems such as those that affected my mother and believe the Bill should make all such inquests automatically before juries.
Please write to members of the House of Lords to urge that s.7 of the Coroner's and Justice Bill should be amended to make juries automatically required where a death has occurred in the custody or detention of the state.
You can email Lords easily by using the following link: Write to Them (Lords). Lords are not elected and so you can write to any Lord that comes to mind, or even send a messages to various Lords. To search for Lords with a particular interest, use the search engine and enter the words 'coroner', 'mental health', 'human rights' or anything else you think is relevant.
Here is the suggested text of the letter:
Dear Lord xx,
Coroner's and Justice Bill - protecting those detained by the state
I am writing to urge you to take part in the upcoming Second Reading of the Coroner's and Justice Bill which will take place on 18th May. As you are aware, the Coronial system is in desperate need of reform and this Bill has the potential to change things dramatically.
In particular I have read that s.7 of the Bill appears to be weakening the legal requirement for inquests to be held before juries where the deceased person was in the custody or detention of the state. The current position is that all deaths in custody are automatically heard before juries, in recognition of the fact that the state must be properly held accountable for all deaths that occur on its watch.
s.7 of the Bill currently states that inquests into deaths that have occurred in detention or custody will only take place before juries where the death was violent or unnatural (s.7(2)(a)(i)), where the cause of death is unknown (s.7(2)(a)(ii)), where a member of the police is involved (s.7(2)(b)(i) and (ii)), where the death was due to a notifiable accident, poisioning or disease (s.7(2)(c)), or otherwise where the senior coroner thinks there is sufficient reason for doing so (s.7(3)).
I am concerned that this means a large number of deaths which would previously have been investigated (e.g. deaths in prison) will not automatically be heard before a jury.
In addition to this, I believe that all deaths where the state is implicated (deaths in custody, as well as those relating to people detained under the Mental Health Acts) require the highest level of scrutiny due to the vulnerable position of prisoners and detained people in society. The state has a legal obligation to protect the rights of those in its custody and detention, as well as to fully investigate such deaths under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
I urge you to introduce or support an amendment to s.7 of the Coroner's and Justice Bill to make inquests concerning the deaths of those in custody or detention automatically heard before juries. The state must be seem to take such deaths seriously, including where there may be evidence of systemic failures which result in death, and this amendment would also give families more confidence that the state is prepared to take responsibility for properly investigating any problems.
I would be interested to hear your perspective on this and look forward to hearing the outcome of the debate on 15th May.
Yours sincerely,
xxxx
Best wishes to you all,
Steven
It has taken a considerable amount of time for us to get to this point, largely because of court delays. With the third anniversary of my mother's death approaching in November, we hope that it will not be another anniversary where we are left with the legal system grinding on without any end in sight.
Even if our appeal is successful, it would only mean that the case would then be sent back to the High Court to enable a full Judicial Review hearing to take place, a process which could again take months. Yet, my family and I remain entirely committed to pursuing our legal rights and bringing to light the appalling circumstances of my mother's death.
The Mental Health Trust has said that it will not take part in the Appeal as there has 'already been significant public expenditure' on this case. Whilst we have no desire to deal with the Mental Health Trust ourselves, we think the way they have approached the case thus far has been appalling, especially with regards to the delaying tactics they have employed in disclosing vital information.
The new evidence that came to light from the full disclosure of my mother's medical records turned out to be vital, and yet they have attempted to rely on these delays to suggest that the case should now lapse due to the 'passage of time'. Of course, we refuse to be insulted in this way and even the High Court judge was unimpressed with this ridiculous argument.
The Coroner's and Justice Bill is still going through Parliament and is currently awaiting the Lords 2nd Reading before a Committee and Report stage when it will become law. The duty to hold inquests in front of juries where the deceased was in detention or custody prior to death has failed to be amended to become automatic, meaning only deaths of a violent or unnatural nature will be investigated in this way. My family and I believe this will fail to take into account systemic problems such as those that affected my mother and believe the Bill should make all such inquests automatically before juries.
Please write to members of the House of Lords to urge that s.7 of the Coroner's and Justice Bill should be amended to make juries automatically required where a death has occurred in the custody or detention of the state.
You can email Lords easily by using the following link: Write to Them (Lords). Lords are not elected and so you can write to any Lord that comes to mind, or even send a messages to various Lords. To search for Lords with a particular interest, use the search engine and enter the words 'coroner', 'mental health', 'human rights' or anything else you think is relevant.
Here is the suggested text of the letter:
Dear Lord xx,
Coroner's and Justice Bill - protecting those detained by the state
I am writing to urge you to take part in the upcoming Second Reading of the Coroner's and Justice Bill which will take place on 18th May. As you are aware, the Coronial system is in desperate need of reform and this Bill has the potential to change things dramatically.
In particular I have read that s.7 of the Bill appears to be weakening the legal requirement for inquests to be held before juries where the deceased person was in the custody or detention of the state. The current position is that all deaths in custody are automatically heard before juries, in recognition of the fact that the state must be properly held accountable for all deaths that occur on its watch.
s.7 of the Bill currently states that inquests into deaths that have occurred in detention or custody will only take place before juries where the death was violent or unnatural (s.7(2)(a)(i)), where the cause of death is unknown (s.7(2)(a)(ii)), where a member of the police is involved (s.7(2)(b)(i) and (ii)), where the death was due to a notifiable accident, poisioning or disease (s.7(2)(c)), or otherwise where the senior coroner thinks there is sufficient reason for doing so (s.7(3)).
I am concerned that this means a large number of deaths which would previously have been investigated (e.g. deaths in prison) will not automatically be heard before a jury.
In addition to this, I believe that all deaths where the state is implicated (deaths in custody, as well as those relating to people detained under the Mental Health Acts) require the highest level of scrutiny due to the vulnerable position of prisoners and detained people in society. The state has a legal obligation to protect the rights of those in its custody and detention, as well as to fully investigate such deaths under the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act.
I urge you to introduce or support an amendment to s.7 of the Coroner's and Justice Bill to make inquests concerning the deaths of those in custody or detention automatically heard before juries. The state must be seem to take such deaths seriously, including where there may be evidence of systemic failures which result in death, and this amendment would also give families more confidence that the state is prepared to take responsibility for properly investigating any problems.
I would be interested to hear your perspective on this and look forward to hearing the outcome of the debate on 15th May.
Yours sincerely,
xxxx
Best wishes to you all,
Steven
Friday, 16 January 2009
Coronial Reform - The Vulnerable Lose Out Again?
On Wednesday this week the government published the long-overdue Coroners and Justice Bill. Among a wholesale reform of the system, the Bill will introduce the role of Chief Coroner who will be responsible for oversight and inspection of the Coronial system. In addition, a new avenue of appeal to the Chief Coroner will be open to families, whereas previously families - including my own - would have to embark on the long and onerous journey of Judicial Review proceedings.
Other provisions, as you may have heard in the press, are more concerning. The Bill as it currently stands seeks to provide the Secretary of State for Justice the legal power to 'certify' certain inquests. These inquests must then be held in secret. Initially this amendment was added in the name of national security, but the reasons for certification have now been significantly broadened to include protecting "the relationship between the UK and another country", prevention of crime, to protect witnesses and "otherwise to protect real harm to the public interest." This list is open to very broad interpretation and could affect hundreds of cases every year, and particularly those where they state itself needs calling to account.
The bad news seems to continue. Worryingly, the Bill in its present state seems to remove the requirement that deaths in custody will automatically be heard before a jury, imposing conditions such as that the death was violent or unnatural, or involved the police. Yet, as we know from my mum's case and from many others, systemic institutional failures - neglect, negligence, lack of training, etc. - can create just as toxic s mix of conditions which should be brought to the attention of the public.
Whilst this new provision will cover people in 'state detention' - including those detained under the Mental Health Act, and thereby providing that a jury inquest might be ascertainable - the Bill leaves the decision primarily up to the Coroner in question, granting them broad discretion. As I read it, families will still be entirely reliant upon the willingness of the Coroner in question to listen carefully and apply their own moral code to the case in question. As we saw in the disgraceful conduct of the inquest investigating my mother's death before by Andrew Reid, families may still find themselves having to take on costly and incredibly time-consuming litigation just to get themselves heard by poorly-trained judicial officers.
We have a duty, as a nation, to ensure that our places of custody and detention are safe. When a person dies in them, the state must be held to account. Otherwise, how different are these places from the asylums and workhouses of the Victorian Era, where no one saw and no one cared about the people there? Families who have lost loved ones around the country have long been waiting to see this Bill and it is fair to say that the positive aspects - a new 'Bereaved Families Charter' - are in large part demolished by the negative aspects. Luckily the Bill is only in the early stages of being considered by Parliament and we have time to lobby for amendments. Please keep your eye on the press for details of how the Bill is progressing.
My mother's case is still awaiting a judicial decision on permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. We were supposed to have a decision before Christmas but heard nothing. The Court of Appeal has a backlog and, as ever, inquest cases go to the back of the list. We are expecting some movement in the next few weeks when we will know whether or not we can proceed to a full appeal or if we have to present our case for permission orally first. We will keep you updated.
Here's to hoping that the New Year is going well for you all.
Steven
Other provisions, as you may have heard in the press, are more concerning. The Bill as it currently stands seeks to provide the Secretary of State for Justice the legal power to 'certify' certain inquests. These inquests must then be held in secret. Initially this amendment was added in the name of national security, but the reasons for certification have now been significantly broadened to include protecting "the relationship between the UK and another country", prevention of crime, to protect witnesses and "otherwise to protect real harm to the public interest." This list is open to very broad interpretation and could affect hundreds of cases every year, and particularly those where they state itself needs calling to account.
The bad news seems to continue. Worryingly, the Bill in its present state seems to remove the requirement that deaths in custody will automatically be heard before a jury, imposing conditions such as that the death was violent or unnatural, or involved the police. Yet, as we know from my mum's case and from many others, systemic institutional failures - neglect, negligence, lack of training, etc. - can create just as toxic s mix of conditions which should be brought to the attention of the public.
Whilst this new provision will cover people in 'state detention' - including those detained under the Mental Health Act, and thereby providing that a jury inquest might be ascertainable - the Bill leaves the decision primarily up to the Coroner in question, granting them broad discretion. As I read it, families will still be entirely reliant upon the willingness of the Coroner in question to listen carefully and apply their own moral code to the case in question. As we saw in the disgraceful conduct of the inquest investigating my mother's death before by Andrew Reid, families may still find themselves having to take on costly and incredibly time-consuming litigation just to get themselves heard by poorly-trained judicial officers.
We have a duty, as a nation, to ensure that our places of custody and detention are safe. When a person dies in them, the state must be held to account. Otherwise, how different are these places from the asylums and workhouses of the Victorian Era, where no one saw and no one cared about the people there? Families who have lost loved ones around the country have long been waiting to see this Bill and it is fair to say that the positive aspects - a new 'Bereaved Families Charter' - are in large part demolished by the negative aspects. Luckily the Bill is only in the early stages of being considered by Parliament and we have time to lobby for amendments. Please keep your eye on the press for details of how the Bill is progressing.
My mother's case is still awaiting a judicial decision on permission to appeal at the Court of Appeal. We were supposed to have a decision before Christmas but heard nothing. The Court of Appeal has a backlog and, as ever, inquest cases go to the back of the list. We are expecting some movement in the next few weeks when we will know whether or not we can proceed to a full appeal or if we have to present our case for permission orally first. We will keep you updated.
Here's to hoping that the New Year is going well for you all.
Steven
Monday, 29 September 2008
Good News on Appeal
After failure at the High Court last week, my family's lawyers are today lodging an application at the Court of Appeal. Though we were disappointed with last week's ruling, our legal team have worked hard over the last few days to build a strong case for an appeal.
A key point of the appeal is that my mother's death should automatically get the same form of investigation as a person who was in prison at the time of death. The judge at the High Court did not consider this point and, although the law is not clear in this area, we have a strong argument that this should be the case. We are also strongly arguing that the state was directly involved in my mother's death and therefore should have to answer for its actions under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Of course, we wouldn't be able to continue this case without having public funding and, in a further lift for our family last week, legal aid was granted on Friday within a few hours to allow us to make the appeal. Our advocate's advice is that the case is strong and the public interest is significant. As my family prepare to mark the second anniversary of my mother's death on 2nd October, we will continue to argue that people who die in mental health detention are just as important as anyone else.
A key point of the appeal is that my mother's death should automatically get the same form of investigation as a person who was in prison at the time of death. The judge at the High Court did not consider this point and, although the law is not clear in this area, we have a strong argument that this should be the case. We are also strongly arguing that the state was directly involved in my mother's death and therefore should have to answer for its actions under the European Convention on Human Rights.
Of course, we wouldn't be able to continue this case without having public funding and, in a further lift for our family last week, legal aid was granted on Friday within a few hours to allow us to make the appeal. Our advocate's advice is that the case is strong and the public interest is significant. As my family prepare to mark the second anniversary of my mother's death on 2nd October, we will continue to argue that people who die in mental health detention are just as important as anyone else.
Wednesday, 24 September 2008
Case proceeds to the Court of Appeal
After a complex hearing at the High Court yesterday, Mr. Justice Blake decided not to grant my family permission for a Judicial Review to be heard about the ineffectiveness of the inquest into my mother's death.
Giving judgement, Mr. Justice Blake said that he felt there was not the need for a fresh inquiry despite recognising there had been numerous questions over the evidence relied upon by Dr. Andrew Reid, the coroner in the case. In an unfortunate judgement, Mr. Justice Blake did not accept that the state had a duty to protect my mother to the same extent as that owed to prisoners. He also stated that human rights requirements for a broad investigation in cases such as my mother's did not apply, but recognised that the law in this area was not settled. This will be a key aspect of the appeal.
Our legal team is now working rapidly over the next couple of days to assess the merits of an application to the Court of Appeal. We think it is shocking that the deaths of people as vulnerable as my mother - and in such appalling circumstances - do not attract the same safeguards as granted to prisoners and intend to continue arguing the point.
We are not convinced that the failures which occurred in my mother's care will be prevented in the future and believe that other vulnerable mental health patients are still at risk. The inability of the London Ambulance Service to gain access to a locked ward, the lack of training of nurses in operating key life-saving equipment and the failure to place my mother on a ward more capable of caring for her complex needs are systemic failings which, we believe, must be publicly scrutinised in detail. Anything less than this suggests what some of us already suspect - people who suffer from mental health difficulties are still the subject of widespread discrimination. Has anything really changed since the Victorian asylums closed?
The mental health trust, to date, have relied on a cynical argument about time limits to have the case thrown out. This argument was not successful yesterday. We call on the trust to drop any further opposition and focus on the needs of society's most vulnerable individuals. We will not rest until they do.
Giving judgement, Mr. Justice Blake said that he felt there was not the need for a fresh inquiry despite recognising there had been numerous questions over the evidence relied upon by Dr. Andrew Reid, the coroner in the case. In an unfortunate judgement, Mr. Justice Blake did not accept that the state had a duty to protect my mother to the same extent as that owed to prisoners. He also stated that human rights requirements for a broad investigation in cases such as my mother's did not apply, but recognised that the law in this area was not settled. This will be a key aspect of the appeal.
Our legal team is now working rapidly over the next couple of days to assess the merits of an application to the Court of Appeal. We think it is shocking that the deaths of people as vulnerable as my mother - and in such appalling circumstances - do not attract the same safeguards as granted to prisoners and intend to continue arguing the point.
We are not convinced that the failures which occurred in my mother's care will be prevented in the future and believe that other vulnerable mental health patients are still at risk. The inability of the London Ambulance Service to gain access to a locked ward, the lack of training of nurses in operating key life-saving equipment and the failure to place my mother on a ward more capable of caring for her complex needs are systemic failings which, we believe, must be publicly scrutinised in detail. Anything less than this suggests what some of us already suspect - people who suffer from mental health difficulties are still the subject of widespread discrimination. Has anything really changed since the Victorian asylums closed?
The mental health trust, to date, have relied on a cynical argument about time limits to have the case thrown out. This argument was not successful yesterday. We call on the trust to drop any further opposition and focus on the needs of society's most vulnerable individuals. We will not rest until they do.
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
The judiciary fails my mother again
Well it's been a few months since I last provided an update about my mum's case on here, primarily because it has taken months to have a decision about permission for the case to proceed at the High Court.
Unfortunately in early July Mr Justice Underhill refused permission on the papers, arguing that my family has taken too long to lodge papers. There was a substantial delay at the beginning of the year because the mental health trust had failed on numerous occasions to disclose important documentation about my mother's care, including health notes around the time of her death.
My family and I believe that Mr. Justice Underhill has unfairly rewarded the mental health trust for their delay in a judgement that was confusing and where he seemed to rule on the substantive merits of the case without probing the evidence. In light of this our solicitors immediately renewed the application for permission at an oral hearing, as is our right, where we will be arguing that the public interest is so significant that time limits should be set aside. The hearing date has been set for 23rd September.
Whilst vulnerable people continue to die in mental health institutions in this country, we believe it is not enough merely to brush aside concerns about the way in which the system operates. We will continue to fight for justice for my mother and, once again, thank all those who continue to provide support by way of letters and emails.
Take good care,
Steven Allen
Unfortunately in early July Mr Justice Underhill refused permission on the papers, arguing that my family has taken too long to lodge papers. There was a substantial delay at the beginning of the year because the mental health trust had failed on numerous occasions to disclose important documentation about my mother's care, including health notes around the time of her death.
My family and I believe that Mr. Justice Underhill has unfairly rewarded the mental health trust for their delay in a judgement that was confusing and where he seemed to rule on the substantive merits of the case without probing the evidence. In light of this our solicitors immediately renewed the application for permission at an oral hearing, as is our right, where we will be arguing that the public interest is so significant that time limits should be set aside. The hearing date has been set for 23rd September.
Whilst vulnerable people continue to die in mental health institutions in this country, we believe it is not enough merely to brush aside concerns about the way in which the system operates. We will continue to fight for justice for my mother and, once again, thank all those who continue to provide support by way of letters and emails.
Take good care,
Steven Allen
Monday, 28 January 2008
Independent on Sunday article
The Independent on Sunday yesterday featured my mum's case in an effort to show the appalling legal loophole that has allowed the inquests of detained mental health patients not to be effectively scrutinised, again showing that "mental health patients have even less rights than criminals."
Here is the article in full.
Mental Health Campaign: Families demand full inquests for deaths in secure hospitals
By Nina Lakhani
Sunday, 27 January 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/.../deaths-in-secure-hospitals-774652.html
Hundreds of people with mental health problems are dying while detained in hospital but their deaths are not being fully investigated.
Legal experts and campaigners claim coroners are failing to investigate thoroughly many of these deaths because of a legal loophole, with the result that suspected failures in care and even abuse are going undetected.
Coroners have complete freedom to determine the extent to which the death of a mental health patient will be investigated, unlike deaths in prison or police custody where they are legally compelled to investigate fully in the presence of a jury.
In many cases they are refusing to hold jury inquests – widely seen as a broader and more exacting form of inquiry.
Figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show that 340 people died in psychiatric hospitals while under section last year – nearly one a day – although the Mental Health Care Commission believes some deaths in psychiatric care are not being reported.
As a result, grieving families are left to battle an "archaic system", often for years, just to find out how their relatives died.
Critics claim it is evidence of the discrimination suffered by mentally ill people and are demanding urgent changes to the law. "We are talking about the ultimate injustice; people go into hospital for a mental illness and are coming out dead. We need to send out a clear message that whatever happened to the individual behind closed doors is worthy of a thorough investigation," says Paul Farmer, chief executive ofthe mental health charity Mind
Coroners failing to investigate the deaths of psychiatric patients to the satisfaction of the families now face a High Court legal challenge.
Sandra Allen, a pianist and manic depressive, died of a heart attack in a north London psychiatric hospital in 2006.
A coroner ruled she died of natural causes which were unavoidable, but her children are challenging the coroner's verdict because they believe their mother's death could have been avoided with better care.
Mrs Allen, 61, died from a heart attack after choking on a sandwich she had been left to eat unattended: she had no dentures and a long history of choking. Staff failed to clear her airways and were unable to operate an oxygen canister. She was still choking when the ambulance arrived. It had waited for several minutes outside the unit because the security guard was asleep.
Her family argue the coroner was wrong to reject their request for a broader inquiry as much of the psychiatric and physical care she received while under section was unacceptable and they believe it contributed to her untimely death.
Devastated by the coroner's refusal to hear evidence from expert witnesses, they say they will fight "as long as it takes".
Solicitor Emma Norton, who acts for the family, said: "This case highlights the difficulties often faced by families in ensuring there are thorough inquiries into the deaths of patients in psychiatric institutions.
"Unlike prisoners, the families of dead patients are not automatically entitled to an inquest with a jury. It can be an uphill battle to get the coroner to consider the wider issues relevant to the death. There is a lot of inconsistency in these decisions and it depends on the coroner."
Critics argue patients who have been locked up and compelled to take treatment they did not want deserve an equal standard of justice when they die.
"This situation is indicative of how few rights mental health patients have. They have done nothing wrong; their only crime is to suffer from an illness, yet they have fewer rights than criminals," says Jane Harris, from the mental health charity Rethink.
"How many more people have to die without proper investigations? We are talking about hundreds of deaths."
Campaigners hoped the Government's proposed Coroners Bill might remedy some of the failings, but it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said: "The Bill proposes that a coroner will investigate a death if they suspect the deceased died while detained, irrespective of the nature of the death or the type of detention."
But the co-director of Inquest, Helen Shaw, said: "We cannot take it for granted the Coroners Bill will happen just because the Government says it will. We need to crank up the heat and campaigning so detained patients are treated in the same way as any person detained by the state."
Andrew Lansley, shadow Secretary of State for Health, said: "There is a pressing need for this Bill. The Government promised one and they have had plenty of time to do so, but they have dithered and delayed."
'Whenever we visited her on the ward she would be covered in bruises'
Steven Allen, 23, a trainee lawyer, is the second of Sandra Allen's five children. Here he describes the family's determination to get justice for their mother.
"My mum died in hospital while held under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. She was 61 years old. Her life was a long battle with the mental health system and now she's dead we have to keep battling for her.
"She'd been in and out of hospitals since her 20s but as her physical health got worse we fought hard to get her looked after properly; we never won the fight. Whenever we visited her on the ward she would be covered in bruises and we would leave feeling terrified for her.
"We desperately wanted her moved to the elderly ward but were told she was too young and they wanted to 'keep muddling through'. I'm sure the staff on the elderly ward would have been better qualified to manage the heart attack.
"We believe she died needlessly. Why hadn't her heart disease been picked up? Why couldn't the staff work a simple oxygen canister? These are the questions we wanted the coroner to answer but he let us down badly; he dismissed my mum's life as unimportant.
"We know this could take years but we want her struggles acknowledged and justice, not just for her, but for every other family in this situation."
Here is the article in full.
Mental Health Campaign: Families demand full inquests for deaths in secure hospitals
By Nina Lakhani
Sunday, 27 January 2008
http://www.independent.co.uk/.../deaths-in-secure-hospitals-774652.html
Hundreds of people with mental health problems are dying while detained in hospital but their deaths are not being fully investigated.
Legal experts and campaigners claim coroners are failing to investigate thoroughly many of these deaths because of a legal loophole, with the result that suspected failures in care and even abuse are going undetected.
Coroners have complete freedom to determine the extent to which the death of a mental health patient will be investigated, unlike deaths in prison or police custody where they are legally compelled to investigate fully in the presence of a jury.
In many cases they are refusing to hold jury inquests – widely seen as a broader and more exacting form of inquiry.
Figures obtained by The Independent on Sunday show that 340 people died in psychiatric hospitals while under section last year – nearly one a day – although the Mental Health Care Commission believes some deaths in psychiatric care are not being reported.
As a result, grieving families are left to battle an "archaic system", often for years, just to find out how their relatives died.
Critics claim it is evidence of the discrimination suffered by mentally ill people and are demanding urgent changes to the law. "We are talking about the ultimate injustice; people go into hospital for a mental illness and are coming out dead. We need to send out a clear message that whatever happened to the individual behind closed doors is worthy of a thorough investigation," says Paul Farmer, chief executive ofthe mental health charity Mind
Coroners failing to investigate the deaths of psychiatric patients to the satisfaction of the families now face a High Court legal challenge.
Sandra Allen, a pianist and manic depressive, died of a heart attack in a north London psychiatric hospital in 2006.
A coroner ruled she died of natural causes which were unavoidable, but her children are challenging the coroner's verdict because they believe their mother's death could have been avoided with better care.
Mrs Allen, 61, died from a heart attack after choking on a sandwich she had been left to eat unattended: she had no dentures and a long history of choking. Staff failed to clear her airways and were unable to operate an oxygen canister. She was still choking when the ambulance arrived. It had waited for several minutes outside the unit because the security guard was asleep.
Her family argue the coroner was wrong to reject their request for a broader inquiry as much of the psychiatric and physical care she received while under section was unacceptable and they believe it contributed to her untimely death.
Devastated by the coroner's refusal to hear evidence from expert witnesses, they say they will fight "as long as it takes".
Solicitor Emma Norton, who acts for the family, said: "This case highlights the difficulties often faced by families in ensuring there are thorough inquiries into the deaths of patients in psychiatric institutions.
"Unlike prisoners, the families of dead patients are not automatically entitled to an inquest with a jury. It can be an uphill battle to get the coroner to consider the wider issues relevant to the death. There is a lot of inconsistency in these decisions and it depends on the coroner."
Critics argue patients who have been locked up and compelled to take treatment they did not want deserve an equal standard of justice when they die.
"This situation is indicative of how few rights mental health patients have. They have done nothing wrong; their only crime is to suffer from an illness, yet they have fewer rights than criminals," says Jane Harris, from the mental health charity Rethink.
"How many more people have to die without proper investigations? We are talking about hundreds of deaths."
Campaigners hoped the Government's proposed Coroners Bill might remedy some of the failings, but it was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech.
A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Justice said: "The Bill proposes that a coroner will investigate a death if they suspect the deceased died while detained, irrespective of the nature of the death or the type of detention."
But the co-director of Inquest, Helen Shaw, said: "We cannot take it for granted the Coroners Bill will happen just because the Government says it will. We need to crank up the heat and campaigning so detained patients are treated in the same way as any person detained by the state."
Andrew Lansley, shadow Secretary of State for Health, said: "There is a pressing need for this Bill. The Government promised one and they have had plenty of time to do so, but they have dithered and delayed."
'Whenever we visited her on the ward she would be covered in bruises'
Steven Allen, 23, a trainee lawyer, is the second of Sandra Allen's five children. Here he describes the family's determination to get justice for their mother.
"My mum died in hospital while held under section 3 of the Mental Health Act. She was 61 years old. Her life was a long battle with the mental health system and now she's dead we have to keep battling for her.
"She'd been in and out of hospitals since her 20s but as her physical health got worse we fought hard to get her looked after properly; we never won the fight. Whenever we visited her on the ward she would be covered in bruises and we would leave feeling terrified for her.
"We desperately wanted her moved to the elderly ward but were told she was too young and they wanted to 'keep muddling through'. I'm sure the staff on the elderly ward would have been better qualified to manage the heart attack.
"We believe she died needlessly. Why hadn't her heart disease been picked up? Why couldn't the staff work a simple oxygen canister? These are the questions we wanted the coroner to answer but he let us down badly; he dismissed my mum's life as unimportant.
"We know this could take years but we want her struggles acknowledged and justice, not just for her, but for every other family in this situation."
Monday, 21 January 2008
Happy New Year, and the Campaign Broadens
Dear All,
Although it's now already over three weeks into the new year, please accept my greetings to you all for a prosperous time in the rest of 2008.
Things are starting to happen in respect of the campaign about proper investigations into the deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act. Firstly, I'm drawing up a campaign statement to ask that the law is changed to ensure inquests by juries in such cases, which will then be open to the signature of NGOs, individuals and public figures. This I hope to be able to share with you all next week, with more detailed plans about the campaign.
In addition, the Independent on Sunday will be running an article this weekend featuring my mum's case and analysing the broader legal situation which I've written about on this site at some length. Hopefully this will provide a springboard for a broader public debate on the adequacy of these death investigations and we will be able to redouble our pressure for change to occur within the coronial system. Please get a copy if you can.
I also just wanted to remind everyone that the petition calling for a change in the law - at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Coroners/ - is due to close for signatures at the end of this month. All we're asking for is that the deaths of detained patients are treated as seriously as those that occur in prisons and police stations - the logic is almost painful in its moral clarity. We really need more signatures to get a good response from the government so please consider clicking the link above if you have not already done so.
In a deeply disturbing case where Geoffrey Hodgkin died in 2004 whilst under Section after being restrained, a public inquiry report at the end of last year uncovered similar institutional calamities as occurred around my mum's death. Failures included the inability of staff to use resuscitation equipment, extremely poor management, training and oversight of staff, and the complete unwillingness of the mental health trust to engage with subsequent investigations. Geoffrey's death, like my mother's, highlight again the inadequacy of the the government's protection of our most vulnerable citizens, which my family and I believe cannot be allowed to continue. More details about Geoffrey Hodgkin's case can be found in the inquiry report at http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/hosp20061101r7.pdf.
We hope that, like Geoffrey's family, by standing up to the overwhelming disinterest in matters of life and death in our mental health institutions, we can push for severely overdue reforms to a system that regularly breaches the most fundamental of human rights. It is truly saddening that, in 2008, we are still having to make such basic demands for human dignity, and even more saddening that most people are completely unaware of the situation. We will continue shouting until our point is acted upon.
With best wishes to you all,
Steven Allen
Although it's now already over three weeks into the new year, please accept my greetings to you all for a prosperous time in the rest of 2008.
Things are starting to happen in respect of the campaign about proper investigations into the deaths of those detained under the Mental Health Act. Firstly, I'm drawing up a campaign statement to ask that the law is changed to ensure inquests by juries in such cases, which will then be open to the signature of NGOs, individuals and public figures. This I hope to be able to share with you all next week, with more detailed plans about the campaign.
In addition, the Independent on Sunday will be running an article this weekend featuring my mum's case and analysing the broader legal situation which I've written about on this site at some length. Hopefully this will provide a springboard for a broader public debate on the adequacy of these death investigations and we will be able to redouble our pressure for change to occur within the coronial system. Please get a copy if you can.
I also just wanted to remind everyone that the petition calling for a change in the law - at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Coroners/ - is due to close for signatures at the end of this month. All we're asking for is that the deaths of detained patients are treated as seriously as those that occur in prisons and police stations - the logic is almost painful in its moral clarity. We really need more signatures to get a good response from the government so please consider clicking the link above if you have not already done so.
In a deeply disturbing case where Geoffrey Hodgkin died in 2004 whilst under Section after being restrained, a public inquiry report at the end of last year uncovered similar institutional calamities as occurred around my mum's death. Failures included the inability of staff to use resuscitation equipment, extremely poor management, training and oversight of staff, and the complete unwillingness of the mental health trust to engage with subsequent investigations. Geoffrey's death, like my mother's, highlight again the inadequacy of the the government's protection of our most vulnerable citizens, which my family and I believe cannot be allowed to continue. More details about Geoffrey Hodgkin's case can be found in the inquiry report at http://www.portsmouth.gov.uk/media/hosp20061101r7.pdf.
We hope that, like Geoffrey's family, by standing up to the overwhelming disinterest in matters of life and death in our mental health institutions, we can push for severely overdue reforms to a system that regularly breaches the most fundamental of human rights. It is truly saddening that, in 2008, we are still having to make such basic demands for human dignity, and even more saddening that most people are completely unaware of the situation. We will continue shouting until our point is acted upon.
With best wishes to you all,
Steven Allen
Thursday, 20 December 2007
Christmas Wishes and Shocking Truths
Dear All,
Sorry for the lack of updates recently - this has been because there has been little to report as my family and I are just waiting for the courts to kick into gear in the judicial review into my mum's inquest. As I think we all know, a fight for justice such as my mum's case can take a very long time and be very drawn out, but this will not deter us from continuing.
Whilst we watch the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed, continuing on the television day in and day out, we hope that we will one day be able to secure such a detailed investigation into our mum's death. The inquest into their deaths are important, but we hope that my mum's death is seen as just as important, as well as the potential impact on the Victorian system which caused her death.
We are pleased that Mind are still supporting us and believe that, without juries, inquests into deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act are discriminatory. See their campaigning newsletter at http://www.mind.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FF355335-5079-48A1-A5D3-A27D8119F1E0/5956/MiA25.pdf.
On another less-than-happy point, an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 17th December showed that between a quarter and a fifth of all deaths of people in mental health institutions detained against their will are classed as 'unnatural'. This is a shocking 231 deaths between 2004 and 2006 alone, and shows the depths of the crisis in our mental health care in Britain. Details of the PQ can be found here.
It is with this in mind that, over the Christmas period, my family will be recuperating and redoubling our efforts to have my mum's case heard fairly, and to push for better safeguards for all. We now know that the government does not even collect figures on the number of inquests which are heard before a full jury, showing the sad disregard we seem to have for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Looking towards the festive period, my family and I wish you all a peaceful and restful period. We ask that you think about friends, family and others who will not be at home this Christmas, and will be forced to stay in mental health institutions, hidden and without the care and attention they have a right to receive.
If you have not done so, I urge you to sign the petition to call for greater transparency in inquests: just visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Coroners/. It shouldn't take more than two minutes and we need at least 200 signatures before the end of January to get a response from the Government. Please also get everyone you know to sign too - a small effort will support our call for action greatly.
With kind wishes to you all,
Steven Allen
Sorry for the lack of updates recently - this has been because there has been little to report as my family and I are just waiting for the courts to kick into gear in the judicial review into my mum's inquest. As I think we all know, a fight for justice such as my mum's case can take a very long time and be very drawn out, but this will not deter us from continuing.
Whilst we watch the inquest into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al-Fayed, continuing on the television day in and day out, we hope that we will one day be able to secure such a detailed investigation into our mum's death. The inquest into their deaths are important, but we hope that my mum's death is seen as just as important, as well as the potential impact on the Victorian system which caused her death.
We are pleased that Mind are still supporting us and believe that, without juries, inquests into deaths of people detained under the Mental Health Act are discriminatory. See their campaigning newsletter at http://www.mind.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/FF355335-5079-48A1-A5D3-A27D8119F1E0/5956/MiA25.pdf.
On another less-than-happy point, an answer to a Parliamentary Question on 17th December showed that between a quarter and a fifth of all deaths of people in mental health institutions detained against their will are classed as 'unnatural'. This is a shocking 231 deaths between 2004 and 2006 alone, and shows the depths of the crisis in our mental health care in Britain. Details of the PQ can be found here.
It is with this in mind that, over the Christmas period, my family will be recuperating and redoubling our efforts to have my mum's case heard fairly, and to push for better safeguards for all. We now know that the government does not even collect figures on the number of inquests which are heard before a full jury, showing the sad disregard we seem to have for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Looking towards the festive period, my family and I wish you all a peaceful and restful period. We ask that you think about friends, family and others who will not be at home this Christmas, and will be forced to stay in mental health institutions, hidden and without the care and attention they have a right to receive.
If you have not done so, I urge you to sign the petition to call for greater transparency in inquests: just visit http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Coroners/. It shouldn't take more than two minutes and we need at least 200 signatures before the end of January to get a response from the Government. Please also get everyone you know to sign too - a small effort will support our call for action greatly.
With kind wishes to you all,
Steven Allen
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Petition To Prime Minister Opened.
On 23rd October, Mr. Ivan Lewis, Under Secretary of State for Health, released figures showing that the numbers of deaths in mental health institutions during 2005-6 were 1,980. This is higher than previously thought and goes further in establishing the true scale of the crisis in our mental health institutions up and down the country.
Mr. Lewis provided the information in answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled by member of parliament for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn which can be viewed here. Although figures have been dropping in the last few years (from a high of 2,970 in the year 2001/2) the high number suggests that far too many are still entering our mental health institutions and are never leaving.
The information provides further support for my family's proposition that all cases where people die in mental health institutions should be properly investigated by coroners. We say that this can only happen if inquests into deaths of people in mental health institutions happen before a jury, in exactly the same way as is automatic for prisoners who die in prison.
We are therefore today launching a petition (click here to sign) to ask that the law be changed to make this happen. The Coroner's Bill is currently being drafted and is expected to be announced in the Queen's Speech next week. Please sign the petition and get your friends and family to as well. Every signature will support the cause that these deaths simply cannot go unnoticed and a proper investigation is vital.
I will write again when we know the dates for our High Court hearing, which we are just waiting for now. In the meantime, thanks for the ongoing messages of support.
Steven
Mr. Lewis provided the information in answer to a Parliamentary Question tabled by member of parliament for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn which can be viewed here. Although figures have been dropping in the last few years (from a high of 2,970 in the year 2001/2) the high number suggests that far too many are still entering our mental health institutions and are never leaving.
The information provides further support for my family's proposition that all cases where people die in mental health institutions should be properly investigated by coroners. We say that this can only happen if inquests into deaths of people in mental health institutions happen before a jury, in exactly the same way as is automatic for prisoners who die in prison.
We are therefore today launching a petition (click here to sign) to ask that the law be changed to make this happen. The Coroner's Bill is currently being drafted and is expected to be announced in the Queen's Speech next week. Please sign the petition and get your friends and family to as well. Every signature will support the cause that these deaths simply cannot go unnoticed and a proper investigation is vital.
I will write again when we know the dates for our High Court hearing, which we are just waiting for now. In the meantime, thanks for the ongoing messages of support.
Steven
Monday, 1 October 2007
A Sad First Anniversary
Dear All,
The first anniversary of my mum's death will come about tonight (1st/2nd October) at just after midnight; a year which has been marked with grief and a fight for justice for my family and which is still a long way from being finished.
Sadly in the year since my mother's death there have been the deaths of numerous others in our mental hospitals up and down the country and, indeed around the world. 'Deaths in custody' as they are euphemistically termed reached 600 in the year to April 2007: these included deaths in prisons, police cells and mental hospitals, the latter by far accounting for the vast majority of these deaths. Please have a look at the Forum for Preventing Deaths in Custody's website for more information.
Whilst suicide and 'death by natural causes' are the most frequent pronouncements by those who investigate the matters, the experience of my mother's death and the ensuing investigation has shown the depressing lack of quality of these investigations in the first place. An investigation which is focused merely on the extremely limited medical evidence without any anxious questioning of the imprisoning environment is, surely, a failure of justice but, more importantly, a failure of morality.
A judiciary which is unwilling to hold the elements of our state to account - especially where the death of an individual in their 'care' or 'custody' - is, to borrow a phrase, unfit for purpose.
It is with this saddening reality that my family continue to take a campaigning approach after my mother died in the first few minutes of 2nd October 2006, choking on her vomit, surrounded by the cacophony of state-negligence: a sleeping security guard, the lack of proper medical training of nurses, the lack of proper care, dignity or humanity.
As we have repeatedly said before, my mother's death raises broader questions about mental health in our society. Why, the question can be asked, is it that we are so quick to incarcerate people with so-called 'mental illness' - both for their own protection and that of society - and then submit them to poor, callous treatment in an area of the NHS which hasn't seen the boom of its medical brothers and sisters? Why do we still see so many people with mental illness not just in our mental hospitals but also in our prisons and trudging their way through our criminal justice system? Why can't we value the lives of our fellow human beings?
'Mental illness' is still a Cinderella aspect of our society, shunned and hidden, feared and loathed, misunderstood and oppressed. This dehumanisation - culminating in the death of the 'mentally ill patient' in the state's arms - is a truly wretched state of affairs. The question then is why do so few people seem to care? And why can't so many people see that it could be them that suffers a similar fate to my mother?
But as our solicitors prepare to lodge papers - the wheels of justice turn extremely slowly - at the High Court in our challenge of the discreditable conduct of Dr. Andrew Reid, we are remembering the reason for our struggle once more. The laughter, humanity and decency of our mother made her an important human being - not a person with mental illness. It is in her memory - and with those in mind who have, are and will suffer the tragedies of our present system - that we will continue this fight for justice, even though the odds are definitely against us.
Thank you all for your kind thoughts and words over the last year.
The first anniversary of my mum's death will come about tonight (1st/2nd October) at just after midnight; a year which has been marked with grief and a fight for justice for my family and which is still a long way from being finished.
Sadly in the year since my mother's death there have been the deaths of numerous others in our mental hospitals up and down the country and, indeed around the world. 'Deaths in custody' as they are euphemistically termed reached 600 in the year to April 2007: these included deaths in prisons, police cells and mental hospitals, the latter by far accounting for the vast majority of these deaths. Please have a look at the Forum for Preventing Deaths in Custody's website for more information.
Whilst suicide and 'death by natural causes' are the most frequent pronouncements by those who investigate the matters, the experience of my mother's death and the ensuing investigation has shown the depressing lack of quality of these investigations in the first place. An investigation which is focused merely on the extremely limited medical evidence without any anxious questioning of the imprisoning environment is, surely, a failure of justice but, more importantly, a failure of morality.
A judiciary which is unwilling to hold the elements of our state to account - especially where the death of an individual in their 'care' or 'custody' - is, to borrow a phrase, unfit for purpose.
It is with this saddening reality that my family continue to take a campaigning approach after my mother died in the first few minutes of 2nd October 2006, choking on her vomit, surrounded by the cacophony of state-negligence: a sleeping security guard, the lack of proper medical training of nurses, the lack of proper care, dignity or humanity.
As we have repeatedly said before, my mother's death raises broader questions about mental health in our society. Why, the question can be asked, is it that we are so quick to incarcerate people with so-called 'mental illness' - both for their own protection and that of society - and then submit them to poor, callous treatment in an area of the NHS which hasn't seen the boom of its medical brothers and sisters? Why do we still see so many people with mental illness not just in our mental hospitals but also in our prisons and trudging their way through our criminal justice system? Why can't we value the lives of our fellow human beings?
'Mental illness' is still a Cinderella aspect of our society, shunned and hidden, feared and loathed, misunderstood and oppressed. This dehumanisation - culminating in the death of the 'mentally ill patient' in the state's arms - is a truly wretched state of affairs. The question then is why do so few people seem to care? And why can't so many people see that it could be them that suffers a similar fate to my mother?
But as our solicitors prepare to lodge papers - the wheels of justice turn extremely slowly - at the High Court in our challenge of the discreditable conduct of Dr. Andrew Reid, we are remembering the reason for our struggle once more. The laughter, humanity and decency of our mother made her an important human being - not a person with mental illness. It is in her memory - and with those in mind who have, are and will suffer the tragedies of our present system - that we will continue this fight for justice, even though the odds are definitely against us.
Thank you all for your kind thoughts and words over the last year.
Tuesday, 4 September 2007
Deaths of Mental Health Patients a Hidden Scandal
As my mum's case continues to move slowly, I've decided to do some research into deaths of patients who suffer mental illness. The amount of research in this area is not very substantial - unsurprising given people with mental illness are so low down on the list of public priorities - but some of the clearest information is available in the National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Homicide by People with Mental Illness. Whilst the report also covers so-called 'sudden deaths' its interesting to find that this is not noted on the report's title page.
Shocking statistics uncovered by the government-sponsored research include:
- There are 41 'unexplained deaths' per year on average in British mental hospitals, many of which are put down to pre-existing conditions such as cardiopulmonary disease. Treatment for elderly and vulnerable patients in these situations is marked out as being inadequate and requiring action for improvement. Of these deaths 85% had occurred on in-patient wards and 28% occurred when the patient had been detained under the powers of the Mental Health Act.
- 1,300 people with mental illnesses commit suicide on average every year having had contact with mental health services within three months prior to their deaths. 233 suicides per year were identified as preventable.
The sheer scale of these deaths is shocking it itself, yet the recommendations of the report seem to fall well short of sugegsting any form of public inquiry, especially into deaths which are known to have been preventable. Yet families and friends of deceased mental health patients do not have the protections of broad investigations in the way that families of those who have died in prison.
One preventable death a year is bad enough - these figures seem to suggest a national scandal
And, to add insult to injury, deaths of mental health patients are not treated any differently to anyone elses, despite the fact that mental health service often have a significant impact on these people. Surely there is something very wrong in a country which does not properly investigate the deaths of some of the most vulnerable members of our society. My family and I will continue to fight on in the face of this scandal in our country's mental health institutions and fight for change.
Thank you for your continued support.
Kind wishes,
Steven Allen
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
The legal process grinds on slowly indeed
Firstly my apologies for not posting an update for a while. The legal process in my mum's case is now moving at a snail's pace but my family and I are hanging on until we are able to go back to the High Court.
At the present time we merely have to wait; all we are waiting for from the Coroner, Dr. Reid, is a transcription of his discredited proceedings which we wish to challenge. Sadly my family have had to wait for justice for my mum on numerous occasions and we are unsurprised by Dr. Reid's disrespectful slowness in providing the vital information we require to challenge him.
We are considering the next steps in relation to the campaign for justice for my mother, and are actively seeking offers of advice and support. Please feel free to email me at steven.allen@gmail.com or leave comments on this blog. One of our ideas is to create a space on the site for people to share their experiences of injustice within the mental health sector in whatever format they prefer.We believe it is important to directly challenge the stigma of mental illness in our society and are looking at ways to make this a proactive and sensitive project. Let me know if you're interested in this too.
We will be organising an evening memorial event around the time of the first anniversary of my mum's death at which we hope to be able to meet supporters in person. Information about the event will follow as we are currently putting together ideas for a fitting tribute.
Finally, it is the International Day of Peace on September 21st (www.internationaldayofpeace.org). Please take the opportunity to think about ways you can also challenge the stigma of mental illness in order that we can all live in a more just society.
We wish you all well,
Steven Allen & family
At the present time we merely have to wait; all we are waiting for from the Coroner, Dr. Reid, is a transcription of his discredited proceedings which we wish to challenge. Sadly my family have had to wait for justice for my mum on numerous occasions and we are unsurprised by Dr. Reid's disrespectful slowness in providing the vital information we require to challenge him.
We are considering the next steps in relation to the campaign for justice for my mother, and are actively seeking offers of advice and support. Please feel free to email me at steven.allen@gmail.com or leave comments on this blog. One of our ideas is to create a space on the site for people to share their experiences of injustice within the mental health sector in whatever format they prefer.We believe it is important to directly challenge the stigma of mental illness in our society and are looking at ways to make this a proactive and sensitive project. Let me know if you're interested in this too.
We will be organising an evening memorial event around the time of the first anniversary of my mum's death at which we hope to be able to meet supporters in person. Information about the event will follow as we are currently putting together ideas for a fitting tribute.
Finally, it is the International Day of Peace on September 21st (www.internationaldayofpeace.org). Please take the opportunity to think about ways you can also challenge the stigma of mental illness in order that we can all live in a more just society.
We wish you all well,
Steven Allen & family
Sunday, 15 July 2007
Coroner's verdict a whitewash - challenge to follow
Dr. Andrew Reid, the coroner for Inner North London, held a hearing last Thursday to deliver his verdict on the cause of my mum's death. Unsurprisingly, and in a highly criticised move, Dr. Reid decided to hand down a verdict of death by natural causes after failing in his legal duties to hold a full and proper inquest. Indeed, he did not even back up his verdict with reference to any law whatsoever, seemingly showing an arrogance for the position which he holds. My family now intend to take this further and will be writing to the Office for Judicial Supervision
After criticising my family for walking out of the hearing when he refused to hear our evidence, Dr. Reid said that my family's evidence was "irrelevant". With aggression imbued throughout a rushed verbal judgment where he refused to look at my family once, Dr. Reid said he was not interested in the high drug treatments my mother was forceably given, nor was he interested that my mum was regularly assaulted by patients due to her vulnerable nature. Dr. Reid clearly thought that is was acceptable to leave my mother with a number of serious health conditions untreated for months, including MRSA. He also condoned the actions of staff of the mental hospital the night my mum died, even though a security guard was found to have delayed life-saving treatment by sleeping whilst on duty, not allowing an ambulance crew access to the building.
However, as he went on to explain, he had a number of "more pressing cases" than the death of my mum. We believe this to be a miscarriage of justice, and incredibly disrespectful to the memory of my mother who, for over 40 years of her life, suffered the indignities and discrimination associated with a mental illness. Of course, his decision cannot go unchallenged and we look forward to holding Dr. Reid to account at the High Court in the coming weeks.
My family and I would like to express our thanks to everyone who has joined the campaign over the last few weeks - the supportive messages have been a true source of strength for us and we cannot thank enough all those who have offered to help. With the Mental Health Bill currently gong through Parliament - which will mean more people will find themselves coming in contact with mental health services - we believe it is vital to campaign for change.
Anything less would be disrespectful to my mother's memory, and to the memories of all who have not survived the mental health system in this country. It is not merely a matter of poor public services, but literally a matter of life and death.
In the next few days we will be asking our supporters for their assistance more than ever by writing to government officials and we plan to set up an online petition soon. Until then, my family and I would like to wish you a peaceful week.
Kind wishes,
Steven Allen and family
After criticising my family for walking out of the hearing when he refused to hear our evidence, Dr. Reid said that my family's evidence was "irrelevant". With aggression imbued throughout a rushed verbal judgment where he refused to look at my family once, Dr. Reid said he was not interested in the high drug treatments my mother was forceably given, nor was he interested that my mum was regularly assaulted by patients due to her vulnerable nature. Dr. Reid clearly thought that is was acceptable to leave my mother with a number of serious health conditions untreated for months, including MRSA. He also condoned the actions of staff of the mental hospital the night my mum died, even though a security guard was found to have delayed life-saving treatment by sleeping whilst on duty, not allowing an ambulance crew access to the building.
However, as he went on to explain, he had a number of "more pressing cases" than the death of my mum. We believe this to be a miscarriage of justice, and incredibly disrespectful to the memory of my mother who, for over 40 years of her life, suffered the indignities and discrimination associated with a mental illness. Of course, his decision cannot go unchallenged and we look forward to holding Dr. Reid to account at the High Court in the coming weeks.
My family and I would like to express our thanks to everyone who has joined the campaign over the last few weeks - the supportive messages have been a true source of strength for us and we cannot thank enough all those who have offered to help. With the Mental Health Bill currently gong through Parliament - which will mean more people will find themselves coming in contact with mental health services - we believe it is vital to campaign for change.
Anything less would be disrespectful to my mother's memory, and to the memories of all who have not survived the mental health system in this country. It is not merely a matter of poor public services, but literally a matter of life and death.
In the next few days we will be asking our supporters for their assistance more than ever by writing to government officials and we plan to set up an online petition soon. Until then, my family and I would like to wish you a peaceful week.
Kind wishes,
Steven Allen and family
Monday, 9 July 2007
Are you available this Thursday 12th July at 9am?
After almost five weeks since the coroner adjourned the Inquest into my mum's death my family have finally been informed that Dr. Andrew Reid intends to hand down his judgment in open court this Thursday 12th July at 9am.
Whilst my family took the unusual step of walking out of the evidence stage of the hearing, because we believed that Dr. Reid wasn't interested in listening to us, it is vitally important for us to hear what he has to say on Thursday. His judgment should provide reasons that he decided not to hear any of our legal submissions, and will likely form the basis of our return to the High Court.
If you are available on Thursday morning for an hour or so then please try to come to the court to show your support. The address is:
St Pancras Coroner's Court
Camley Street
London
NW1 0PP
A map of the location can be found here and the court is about a 5-10min walk from King's Cross St. Pancras Tube and Train Stations. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
If you intend to come then please drop me a quick email to let me know - steven.allen@gmail.com.
With very best wishes to you all.
Steven
Whilst my family took the unusual step of walking out of the evidence stage of the hearing, because we believed that Dr. Reid wasn't interested in listening to us, it is vitally important for us to hear what he has to say on Thursday. His judgment should provide reasons that he decided not to hear any of our legal submissions, and will likely form the basis of our return to the High Court.
If you are available on Thursday morning for an hour or so then please try to come to the court to show your support. The address is:
St Pancras Coroner's Court
Camley Street
London
NW1 0PP
A map of the location can be found here and the court is about a 5-10min walk from King's Cross St. Pancras Tube and Train Stations. Your support would be greatly appreciated.
If you intend to come then please drop me a quick email to let me know - steven.allen@gmail.com.
With very best wishes to you all.
Steven
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
