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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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."