Can we agree – there are many misconceptions about how complex systems work when those of us affected by our mental health seriously offend? There’s the (flawed) idea of whether people are “mad” or “bad“; whether someone has “capacity” (which is not a thing in criminal law); and when, if ever, offenders should be prosecuted for things done whilst ill? This post is a response to a press release from Staffordshire Police but I really do want to stress – and can prove – it’s not a point specific to them by any means.
Where someone has been arrested for murder, we often see updates on force websites stating the outcome of the person’s time in custody, whether someone was charged with the offence or bailed for further enquiries, etc. Obviously, some arrested suspects are then “sectioned” under the Mental Health Act 1983 and “diverted” from the criminal justice system to hospital. Fair enough: there are various why immediate prosecution for an offence may not be possible, including a lack of evidence or because there are such serious concerns for someone’s mental health that even if they were immediately prosecuted, they would very obviously be unfit to stand trial or enter a plea, etc. Sometimes, it is unavoidable or even deliberate that immediate prosecution does not occur.
In the recent press release, following a tragic incident in Stoke-on-Trent, a man was arrested on suspicion of murder and then “sectioned”. The press release states –
“A 46-year-old man, from Stoke-on-Trent, who was arrested on suspicion of murder has been detained under the Mental Health Act after being assessed by medical professionals. At this time, we are not looking for anyone else in connection to the investigation.
A number of our officers remain in the area to reassure the community.”
My issue here is something that’s missing – the fact the criminal investigation will continue and this is not (necessarily) the end of the matter.
CHRISTINA EDKINS
In other cases, such an omission has proved important to public trust and confidence –
Christina Edkins was killed on a number 9 bus on the Hagley Road in Birmingham, stabbed by Philip Simelane on a Thursday morning as she travelled to school. He was arrested a couple of hours later and held by the police until Friday evening when he was also “sectioned” under the MHA and a very similar press release distributed. That evening, Twitter (as it was then called) went ballistic at the idea the man might just be “sectioned” as if that were the end of the matter. The police had made no mention of the investigation continuing. The following week, Simelane was prosecuted for murder and the criminal justice process saw things through to a conclusion but there had been no hint this would be the case.
The outrage caught on he had somehow evaded justice by being “sectioned” and all manner of stereotypes, generalisations and ill-informed comment followed about “playing the mental health card” and so on. The discussions became so appalling, I messaged the police’s out-of-hours communications person suggesting they qualify the release to point out the investigation would continue and offering, if it helped, to issue a blog post explaining why immediate prosecution can’t always occur. I was somewhat swiftly told in very polite terms to mind my own business! Fair enough – their decision.
The following morning, another on-call communications person asked me if I would do it, to explain things and they qualified the press release. The post remains the most-read blog I’ve done, such as the interest in understanding what the system does for mentally disordered offenders after the tragic death of a schoolgirl in Birmingham. But en route to that conclusion, the reputation of the police was taking a kicking, all of which could have been avoided if the press release had explained just a little bit more about process which wouldn’t have had to say anything specific about the particular case.
STOKE-ON-TRENT
That’s what struck me here and it made me remember that in other cases like the killings of Matthew Lynch, a potential explosives incident in Nottingham, the killing of Alberta Obinim which involved non-fatal injuries to two others, a non-fatal attack on two women in Burnley and the list goes on if you want to go searching on Google! Interesting to note in a case in London where a man was arrested outside Buckingham Palace, the Metropolitan Police did make reference to the fact he remained on police bail after being “sectioned” – it is easy and possible to do this.
Well done to the Met, who have always had a slightly different policing culture on many things, but on the question of investigation and prosecution after serious offences, I’ve always thought it more balanced than elsewhere, for what that’s worth.
I think this is not unimportant – policing rests on its legitimacy and for that, we need the public to have trust and confidence in the criminal justice system. There is already so much systemic prejudice and active stigmatisation of mental health problems, we would probably benefit from some frankness and clearer information around this most stigmatised area of all: investigation and prosecution around serious offences.
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, 2025
I am not a police officer.
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 