M ental I llness C oncerns A ll	The Inquiry is very dissatisfied with what was the practice in the area- a 'place of safety' was the police station, and an interview there might take place, as this crucial one did, with the psychiatrist , the social worker , sitting on a concrete floor. In a different assessment setting, Cr may have consented to stay under professional observation - if it was at a psychatric Unit. The Consultant psychiatrist might have had a better chance at getting Cr to talk more freely and yield up more florid disturbance and misbelief. The Inquiry does not record whether the consultant was told by the parents of his various odd sayings and preoccupations, but particularly, whether the prior incident of dangerous driving under misbelief was ever mentioned The old question of what grounds are necessary to detain still lingers on - if the illness schizophrenia could be diagnosed - and that is evident from the story of the parents and what was disclosed during the final interview - both together - then there were sufficient grounds for a detaining Order - current active illness and previous danger. Schizophrenia, always a very serious illness, in an acute presentation, is unpredictable as to compliance with any instruction. The consultant was satisfied that the parents could care for him, wanted to do so whilst the medication started and neutralised the illness. But this always takes some time and compliance with medication is difficult to secure at home. A very early out-patient appointment had been made. All of this took into account the parents' wish to avoid the a social consequences after a mental hospital admission for Cr. No doubt, also, thought was being given to a good basis of cooperation and trust, for any future professional relationship. If the events of the prior motoring event - as told to the parents - driven by god - was told by them to the social worker , or to the consultant psychiatrist, then that decision was wrong. The social worker recalled, thinking back, that he had issued a warning about driving with new medication, but , in the event, Cr. had not taken any before the driving rampage. A risk assessment that does not take into account this question to carer 'cocoon' observers - ' has any untoward occurrence happened since you first felt anything was wrong?' - is incomplete.	E-mail reaction is welcome mica@didgy.freeserve.co.uk

Back to Chapman; Craigie

Inquiry List links