This morning’s BBC News contains an article about a very sad homicide incident in 2019. It relates to the victim’s daughter calling for more support for victim’s of homicides, but in Karen Cooper’s particular case, it was a doubly-tragic event because her father was killed and her mother seriously injured by her younger brother, Gary.
Hedley Robinson was 86-years old and attacked along with his wife Margaret at their home by their son Gary. Gary Robinson was subsequently prosecuted for these attacks and he received a restricted hospital order under the Mental Health Act 1983 after conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and for attempted murder.
Some years ago, following the inquest in to Henley’s death the Milton Keynes coroner issued a Preventing Future Deaths report and I remember reading it at the time but it was one of the briefer PFDs and it really didn’t reveal much detail about the events prior to the awful conclusion. The only matter of concern raised was about processes for s136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, (MHA) which now seem to me more curious than before because of the way the BBC article is phrased.
SECTION 136?
Around the time of Mr Robinson’s 86th birthday, Karen received a call to say her mother had called the police because Gary was “smashing up the house again”. Gary had previously been sectioned under the MHA and Karen’s husband went there and told Thames Valley Police (TVP) that this was not unprecedented and he needed to be “sectioned” again. The BBC states, “instead, he was arrested, sent to hospital and later taken back to the police station.”
This is worth understanding, as far as we can do so.
I read this and wondered where Gary was at the point where the officers took the decision to arrest him (presumably for an offence) and take him to custody. If Gary had been in a dwelling, bearing in mind the report was he was smashing the house up, it would not have been lawful for the police to detain him under the MHA – and arresting someone for an offence is not a barrier to them being “sectioned” by an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) and two doctors, either after assessment in an Emergency Department or in a police station.
The article states —
“Gary was deemed not suitable for detention under s136 of the Mental Health Act, legislation used by police forces to take people to places of safety, despite “a lot of people saying this man is not well”.”
What the BBC article does not cover – and nor does the PFD notice – is the extent of mental health assessment either in the Emergency Department or police custody. We can reasonably assume there would have been some consideration of this, but we can’t know precisely what it was. The word “suitable” is curious in a sentence comes after we learn Gary has been taken to police custody because I’m left wondering whether this refers back to the original decision to arrest (which we’ve pointed out may have been because Gary was encountered in a dwelling where the power can’t be used) or whether there was a decision he was not suitable for s136 MHA whilst in police custody and / or at the point of his release?
It would be very unusual to think of using s136 MHA on someone who was under arrest and likely to remain in custody; it slightly less unusual to consider use of s136 MHA on someone if they are being released from a police station, but whether you use the power at that point would undoubtedly be influenced by the extent of mental health assessment whilst in the custody. For example, if there had been assessment of admission under the MHA by an AMHP, use of s136 on release would be highly unlikely to occur. If there had been a deliberate decision taken not to conduct an MHA assessment, it would also be unlikely, unless the police had grave concerns about such a decision and decided to raise them for review.
SERIOUS UNTOWARD INCIDENT
After Gary was released from custody, officers drove him and his mother back to his parents’ home. Ten minutes after the police left, Gary attacked his parents with a knife and both were rushed to hospital where his father died days later and his mother was treated for a serious, almost fatal injury.
Gary was given a restricted hospital order at the Old Bailey in 2019 and questions were raised by his sister Karen about the preventability of the attack. She stated, “If they would have sectioned my brother on that day and put him into a facility or even detained him for another 24hrs then yeah, I would like to think [it would have been prevented].”
The inquest raised the question of reviewing s136 procedures and because of the unanswered questions I have, above, I remain curious as to why. Both TVP and the mental health trust report they have updated procedures, pointing our that coroner found there was no reason to suspect he would harm himself or his parents when released from custody. A TVP Assistant Chief Constable also added “The Coroner also found that an informal request for a second section 136 should have been followed up formally by police, which we accept. However the coroner also found that several informal requests for a re-assessment of Gary Robinson’s mental health were made to mental health professionals, but were declined.”
CURIOUSLY CONFUSED
Finally, I’m not really sure what an “informal request for a second section 136” is, but it obviously implies something about there being a first section 136 … which is very confusing in terms of trying to understand the events and the thought processes which may have sit behind them. If there was a first “136” (perhaps they mean MHA assessment?) then it means an AMHP did consider the case in custody and conduct as assessment – perhaps the lack of follow up in a second request means there was disagreement about the seriousness of Gary’s mental health?
Karen Cooper’s original point concerned support for victims of homicides – that they deserve more support. She’s not the first to call for this and it seems more than reasonable to point it out. All I can add by way of blogging is to point out resources, support and signposting which is available via the Hundred Families charity, who support victims of mental health homicide and whose website is a mine of information.
A domestic homicide review of this case is still pending, which may answer some of the questions, above and when I locate it, I will review this post or write another. Regardless, it remains a sad and tragic read and re-affirms the need for clear, effective policies, training and leadership around this complex interface in policing, mental health and criminal justice.
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 