CONDUCT OF THE INQUIRY
9. The Committee's principal concern in this inquiry
is the balance between protecting the public and respecting the
human rights of individuals. The public protection and human rights
aspects are closely inter-related with medical and spending issues.
Among the issues we have addressed are:
| Should the State have
to wait for a known and dangerous person to commit a crime before
it is able to act, or does the imperative of the protection of
society require the capacity to act even in anticipation of such
a crime? |
| If it is permissible in a free society for
the State to be able to order civic detention of such persons,
where should they be detained |
| (a) in a secure hospital (notwithstanding
that the medical profession say they cannot treat them)? |
| (b) in a prison (even though
they have committed no offence)? |
| (c) in a different type of
establishment altogether? |
| If the third option is to be favoured, what
kind of establishment should be developed? |
| And, if developed, should such an establishment
hold |
| (a) only those persons with
severe personality disorder who have not committed an offence? |
| (b) persons, additionally,
with severe personality disorder who have committed an offence
but who have also served a prison sentence in respect thereof? |
| (c) all persons with severe personality
disorder who pose a sufficient danger to society, even if they
have committed an offence and have not served a prison sentence
in respect thereof? |
| In the event that such civic detention is
thought permissible, and in respect of whichever type of establishment
is thought appropriate, what (a) procedural, (b) evidential and
(c) other safeguards need to be built into the system? |
| How many people are we actually talking about,
and where are they |
| (a) in prison? (b) in hospital? (c) in the community at large? |
| If they are at large, why are they at large?
In particular, are changes to the existing systems actually necessary,
or could those systems better meet the perceived problems if only
they were better used |
| (a) through more appropriate use
of discretionary life sentences—given, especially, that
one of the indicators of severe personality disorder is past offences? |
| (b) through more accurate application
of the test in law as to whether a person suffering from severe
personality disorder is actually 'treatable' given, especially,
the breadth of that test in the case of Reid? ([1998] 1 All ER.
481) |
| How sure are we that we will be able accurately
to find those persons who are at large and who pose such risks
to society? |
| How sure are we that we can accurately assess
the risks that they pose? In particular, are there dangers, and
if so how great are they, that: |
| (a) alongside those who may pose
a risk to society, others too would be detained who pose no sufficient
risk? |
| (b) alternatively, that in endeavouring
to prevent the unnecessary detention of such persons, we will
let free those who do pose the risk that we seek to counter? |
| How should these persons be treated when
they are detained? |
| What evidence is there from other jurisdictions
as to best practice in all of these areas? |
| And, finally, what would be the net cost/benefit
of following that best practice, and is it
a price that we must pay? |
Key Questions
10. We have taken oral and written evidence from
the organisations and individuals listed on pages xxxi and xxxii
and are very grateful to them for their assistance. Many of them
have also responded to the Government's consultation paper. Some
of these organisations will also be responding to a separate consultation
exercise being carried out by the Department of Health on the
operation of the Mental Health Act 1983.[14]
11. The evidence reflects the views of professionals,
charities and interest groups operating in this field. The wider
public interest in protection from crime is represented in a general
way by the Home Office evidence and in the most acute way by the
relatives of victims of past offences.
12. We have been given graphic examples by the victims'
families. They include horrendous cases in which people who were
known in the community to be dangerous have killed. We are also
conscious of a number of recent cases which have focussed attention
on public protection. We have not looked into the circumstances
of individual cases. Since the current proposals are concerned
only with dangerous people with severe personality disorder (and
not mental illness) they would not affect some of the cases to
which our attention has been drawn. Nor would they eliminate completely
the risk posed by dangerous people with severe personality disorder.
13. Separate proposals for reform of the Mental Health
Act 1983 will have implications for policy on dangerous people
with severe personality disorder. A key aspect of those proposals
is the strengthening of powers to ensure that those living in
the community who need treatment do receive it when they need
it. The consultation period on the Mental Health Act is due to
end on 31 March 2000, three months after the end of the consultation
period on severe personality disorder. If both sets of proposals
are implemented, they may be enacted in the same new legislation.
14. On 10 February 2000 the Home Office announced
a pilot project for an assessment procedure at HM Prison Whitemoor.[15]
It will start in the summer of 2000 and provide 42 places to assess
prisoners who may expect to serve part of their sentence at Whitemoor.
The results of the assessments, to be conducted by a multi-disciplinary
staff, will be used for sentence management and programmes for
addressing offending behaviour.
14 Reform
of the Mental Health Act 1983 Proposals for Consultation November
1999 Cm 4480. Back
15 Home
Office press notice 10 February 2000. Back
|
