A short one, to highlight a particular problem with the accuracy of some media coverage of a sensitive and serious case, along with the importance of correctly explaining mental health related criminal justice processes to the public and victims.
Paul Stainsby was jailed for 14-yrs in 2022 for sexual offences committed while teaching in the 1970s at a school in Essex. The BBC stated this morning that on Tuesday he was found guilty in the Crown Court of a further 10 offences committed at Warwick School, despite being “unfit to plead” and stand trial. This is an inherent contradiction: if you are unfit to plead you cannot be found guilty of anything, because there can be no trial, because you are unfit.
A TRIAL OF THE FACTS
What has to happen instead is a “trial of the facts” – the BBC article has now been partly edited after I contact the journalist to point out the error and social media has been taken down. It risked confusing the public about what had actually happened because imagine being affected by these awful things, perhaps without the legal system being properly explained to you only to be told “Yes, he’s guilty but he’ll get no more jail time.”
It just doesn’t make sense and would be an afront to victims of serious crimes like this.
The judge, Matthew Walsh, acknowledged the victims’ “sense of frustration” at the lack of further prison time explaining Mr Stainsby had a progressive form of dementia which had affected his memory and left him unfit for trial. Where a trial of the facts concludes the person “did the actions alleged”, this doesn’t amount to criminal guilt, but it does enable the court to impose protective orders on the defendant to keep the public safe.
The purpose of a “trial of the facts” is to determine whether such orders are required outside of a finding of guilt – it would obviously be unfair and afront to justice to impose criminal level restrictions on someone’s liberty if they hadn’t actually “done the thing” of which they first stood accused.
SO WHAT HAPPENED?!
Frustratingly, we do not know how the story ends and the BBC have only partly altered the article to mention a trail of the facts. Lower down the article, just after one of the victims states Mr Stainsby was “found guilty” (he wasn’t), the article summarises things by saying he “was found guilty of eight counts of indecent assault on a boy under the age of 16, one count of indecent assault on a male aged 16 or over, and one count of inciting a boy under 14 to commit an act of gross indecency.”
Not if he was unfit to plead, he wasn’t.
It may have been found he “did these things”, but there is no criminal sentence to extend his detention precisely because he wasn’t found guilty. We learn at the end he will remain in prison until January 2029, at which point he will be released on licence. Only time will tell how is progressive dementia has progressed as to whether release from prison does full restoration of liberty or whether he will depriving of his liberty in order to ensure care.
Complicated, isn’t it?!
Awarded the President’s Medal, by
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, 2026
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
