Ipswich Crown Court is currently hearing a case where two mental health nurses are subject to a rare prosecution under s127 of the Mental Health Act 1983.
This section creates an offence of ‘wilful neglect’ of a mental health patient in hopsital. It doesn’t just relate to inpatients or to patients who are formally detained there under the MHA, but it does restrict the offence to patients who are on hospital premises at the time of the alleged neglect —
127—(1) It shall be an offence for any person who is an officer on the staff of or otherwise employed in, or who is one of the managers of, a hospital, independent hospital or care home
(a) to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect a patient for the time being receiving treatment for mental disorder as an in-patient in that hospital or home; or
(b) to ill-treat or wilfully to neglect, on the premises of which the hospital or home forms part, a patient for the time being receiving such treatment there as an out-patient.
- …
- (3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine of any amount, or to both.
(4) No proceedings shall be instituted for an offence under this section except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
Prosecutions for this offence do not occur very often and as you see from the wording above, the DPP has to authorise it on every occasion, ensuring extra scrutiny around the necessity of it from the country’s top criminal prosecutor.
The allegation – denied by both defendant nurses – relates to a patient who been secluded around 10:20pm following an incident where a nurse was scratched. The allegation is the patient was not reviewed in person by a nurse until 7:20am. It is a requirement of the Mental Health Act Code of Practice that ongoing necessity for seclusion be reviewed in person after a certain period of time and hospitals need to have policies on this setting out the timescales. In this particular case, it was stated in-person review by a nurse should occur every two hours and indeed there were written records to suggest it had. It is alleged by the prosecution those written records indicating reviews at 1:20am, 3:20am and 5:20am were fraudulent and that CCTV supports this.
As the trial is happening in a Crown Court, it means it is a trial ‘on indictment’, which means a maximum prison sentence of five years is available to the judge, if the defendants were to be convicted.
Concerns was raised by a healthcare assistant and the two defendants deny the charge – the trial continues.
Winner of the President’s Medal,
the Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Winner of the Mind Digital Media Award
All opinions expressed are my own – they do not represent the views of any organisation.
(c) Michael Brown, 2023
I try to keep this blog up to date, but inevitably over time, amendments to the law as well as court rulings and other findings from inquests and complaints processes mean it is difficult to ensure all the articles and pages remain current. Please ensure you check all legal issues in particular and take appropriate professional advice where necessary.
Government legislation website – www.legislation.gov.uk
Mental Health Cop 