| Back to More Serious Analysis. Based around an Example: Lets first get some facts straight. 'No one is above the Law'. Well, this is a common 'legal' declaration and, in principle it is a reasonable one. Where the Law is Just, Fair and Equitable this 'edict' is quite correct. There are those (and I am one of them) who will stand against an 'unjust' law, where it prejudices a group of individuals, or contradicts Human Rights (and incumbent responsibilities). In doing so we accept responsibility for the consequences. It is a common mistake, in the Health & Social Care 'Industry', that the Law is the basis for good practice. In fact, the Law is a very bad basis for good practice. Ethics and sound principles should be 'Above the Law' in this respect. The Law is the 'Minimum' level of acceptable behaviour and conduct. Professional conduct should aspire to be a level, or two, above this minimal level. It is a bit of a play on words but it counters an unconscious mistake that many professionals make. Ethics and Principle, in this respect should be (and should continue to) aspire to remain 'Above the Law. The Law (in respect of Health & Social Care) in the minimum standards acceptable, not the optimum, or maximum (as is often practiced). Rersort to Law The Law, in the case of Health & Social Care, take the principles of 'Best Practice', as demonstrated within actual, proven 'best practices', as the standard to which we should aspire and the minimum standard by which to judge our efforts. To aspire to meet the 'minimum' standard is actually unprofessional and negligent. It is the just 'good enough' principle of minimal effort & commitment. OK - To continue: Now take a deep breath again - For those professionals quick to criticise, these are complex concepts and long sentences can be appropriate. Ask one of your many legal advisors in the institution: It ensures the 'whole' idea is contained within one inclusive legally and conceptually significant block. The sentence is used as the basis for attempting to express a complete 'concept'. Take the special (but not untypical) circumstances that I am often working in and the complaints that people most frequently make to me: Individuals, Family Carers and Volunteers, seeking help in dealing with someone with multiple disability & social problems, each of which do not 'register on the Richter Scale of health & social care need. Two of these are; 'Mental Health' & 'Carer Stress' (which is mental and emotional health again), another of which is a Learning Difficulty. In addition, the 'Carers' (Family, or otherwise) may have multiple 'charges' to consider and some of these 'others' may also have disabilities. Another problem that arises from the initial 'neglect', is an Alcohol and Drug problem, now getting under some measure of control, after some input from the appropriate service (withdrawn now the initial crisis is over), but still presenting as a potential 'risk'. A further problem is alleged & actual criminal activity, which is being addressed by probation and legal services, as best they can, with their own limited resources and extensive demands. The person is, by virtue of these various problems, an easy target for 'blame', as you will see. Note: Sometimes these problems are in addition to any physical and other social needs there may be. This problem with 'The Law' is a quite typical of 'borderline' learning difficulties and (for that matter) those other problems that 'reduce' social competence and social discretion. The difficulty is that the person 'falls between many stools' and as a consequence are frequently 'fall foul' of the Law. As such they are frequently open to abuse; relying instead (naively) on the only people who continue to pay them any real attention; other people with similar problems and crooks, drug pushers, pimps & sexual abusers and the police themselves. This is not an uncommon consequence of people falling outside the 'narrowing' criteria for 'qualifying for help', as set by the Statutory Services (The only services that have the true Status and Credibility to have Police & Legal Confidence and a credible Legal Status). These criteria, in turn, are set to limit the demand upon the limited & poorly utilised resources that are available. These services are 'specialised' and anyone not meeting any & each of the 'specialist' service criteria is left without support. There are no criteria, or systems, to 'aggregate' all the 'sub-critical' needs & risks. The absence is negligent. Professional 'discretion' in identifying needs is now being suppressed. We are encouraged to stick to Institutional Guidelines and Policy, whatever the consequences. Provided we stick to our alleged criteria of 'inclusion' we see ourselves as 'safe', professionally. There may be professional attempts to 'include' those who don't meet a particular service criteria but we become open to 'collective' professional, managerial & supervisory criticism for doing so. The justification is that it is in all professional's interests to keep the workloads down to manageable levels. In fact, these assessments are now geared towards 'exclusion' of Service Users. Now, imagine this person trying to get one of our specialist 'institutions' to understand all the problems they are having. The Service User (surprise, surprise) see it as 'one great big thing'. The separate institutions they are sent to, often one after the other, see it as lots of little problems, so little that they don't count for getting a service from them (unless there is a 'risk' in their terms). The person is sent on somewhere else. It is someone else's problem! This is assessment for 'exclusion', not 'inclusion'. What is more, the assessment undertaken is often a 'screening' assessment, not a true Community Care Assessment - this is neglectful in itself. Now, remember, in the description above, I referred to at least two of the problems being dealt with as 'Mental Health' types, another involved difficulties in understanding (early stages dementia could be another problem area being neglected in this way). Now, people with mental health needs, at any level, are prone to being paranoid and can be reasonably expected to feel threatened by challenging circumstances that surround, or confront them. The assessment (or non-assessment) process is what I would describe as paranoia-genesis ('Paranoiagenic' - Elliott Jaques 1975). The 'floundering', with inadequate understanding and support is also Paranoiagenic. Anyone disagree yet??? No? OK .... Now, just imagine you are this person, or the person trying to help (who may actually be a professional), over a period of years perhaps. What do you think may be the outcome of persistently being told your 'individual' little problems are not big enough to get help from a particular specialist, 'formal' services? You are referred on and perhaps back again. Given all the above contributory effects; What further consequences can we expect if they are then told that the institution can't help (even though they can see a problem), but; 'There are perfectly good voluntary services out there and you (or rather the carer / support worker) and these volunteers are probably the best people to help you'. NOTE: Appreciate also; That you know that these voluntary organisations are poorly funded, by these same Statutory Services (as are private care agencies of all kinds) and the volunteers and paid professionals they 'may' employ, are not trained in recognising and dealing with 'complex needs & problems'. In addition these voluntary groups are under 'Statutory' pressure to undertake the same kinds of assessments & recording processes the Funding Agencies use, geared to 'excluding' all but the most needy; at Substantial & Critical 'risk' (This pressure comes from the 'Funding Agencies'; looking to obtain maximum Statutory Benefit from such funding). This is evidence that the Voluntary Sectors' independence is being usurped. An independence that has previously provided a balance of the 'power' of the Statutory Sector and frequently provides the 'Best Practice' models that are used to promote improved Statutory and Professional Practices. So - imagine all this put together, over months and years. Imagine the frustration, imagine the increased reliance upon 'just good enough' support from friends, who tire and become disillusioned; from the family carer, or volunteers who despair at overcoming one problem after another, moving from once crisis to another, grabbing bit of professional help, when the person 'qualifies' for this, from time to time. Imagine the loss of confidence experience by all, as one excuse is made after another, realising that people are probably 'doing the best they can', feeling that maybe; you are 'being unreasonable and selfish'. Increasingly feeling incompetent, isolated, stupid. Imagine the continued pressure, from those who do show energetic interest, to get problems solved by petty crimes, by taking drugs, or getting drunk ('self medicating' forms of dependency). Now: follow this (pretending to be the person, or their Carer / volunteer): You are legally entitled to the Community Care Assessment (you may even get one if you insist) but you are not 'entitled' to the services unless you 'qualify'. If you get that far it involves about 1.5 to 2 hours of questions and form filling. There are intimate questions, geared in terms that suit the institution undertaking the assessment (health, or social services, etc.) and not disposed to being readily understood by someone with any cognitive, or 'social understanding' problems, due to any cause. Carers are also entitled, in law, to a Carer's Assessment (if you remember to remind them to do one) but again, there is no obligation to do any more than that. The process is supposedly 'cathartic'; at least you know what you 'don't know' and you are more aware of where you are failing in some way and why. You are now more certain about what you and the Service User are not getting and may even have an explanation as to why. If either of you 'fit' one of these 'voluntary agencies' that are available (there are many good ones) you may find some solace there, but they are often these Service Users are just as frustrated and lacking in support as you. Anyway, which one do you go to - remember there are multiple disabilities and social problems you are handing. Will you / they fit the limited service available (given that Statutory Service have their own influence here also)? Good professionals will use these two forms of assessments to help you but you have to get to one of them first and they are explicitly and officially told not to 'step outside the box', for fear of criticism, or even disciplinary action. They are required to follow policy, even if it conflicts with their Ethics and with Professionally meeting the need of people who can be identify as needing 'any' help. In fact, discussion about whether, or not a Community Care Assessment was 'advisable', centred around the fact that the service would not be able to provide a service to the person being considered in my example. Again I ask you. What do you think the possible consequences of these experience could be? Come on! Shall I tell you - Just in case you don't have enough information to work it out, or my account is so poor that it is not possible to see what the problem is? Sorry about the sarcasm, I recently picked it up from a Family Carer and a Community Volunteer, who had experienced these same kinds of frustrations - its quite infectious and I haven't had an opportunity to get supervision, to get it all suppressed and in its rightful place. I was dealing with another crisis and then went off sick with stress. Well, hopefully I have made my point, but let me just outline the actual (and possible) outcomes in these kinds of circumstances. Well this is the probable outcomes as I see them, after 50 + years of observation, covering two or three generations of meeting social need in some form or other. I have to be frank. I know most of the outcome in this instance already. It is fairly typical of my experiences.: PARANOIA AND A BELIEF THAT THERE IS A CONSPIRACY (SERVICE USER & CARERS).
There seems to be no adequate explanation why there is no real help. Each problem is seen as 'sub critical', the combination of these problems is compounded but goes unrecognised as substantial and critical risk (Professional Tunnel Vision - services are too specialised and fragmented - too much in-fighting and displacement of problems 'else where'). POOR PHYSICAL, PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH (SERVICE USER & CARERS).
The situation is already stressful enough and the absence of support, or the clear means to get it, just makes the stress worse: Breakdown of relationships, poor physical, psychological and emotional health are possibilities.
The Voluntary Services are also affected by these pressures and potentially provide a reduced level of support in these complex circumstances. Individual support workers are also increasingly at risk, if they continue their support against this level of indifference and lack of recognition of a problem of 'mental capacity' of the person they are supporting. POTENTIAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF 'ABUSE' - IN 'VULNERABLE ADULT' TERMS: NEGLIGENT POLICE ACTIONS AND THE NEGLECT OF SERVICES TO RESPOND TO DEMONSTRATED 'RISKS'.
If someone had the energy and 'front' to make a case, these 'outcomes' could be the reasonable repercussions of the evident negligent actions. There is clear evidence of a lack of 'mental capacity' in many respects, and due to a combination of a number of 'sub-critical, specialist' personal and social problems (again the cumulative effect is not being adequately considered).
All professionals involved with people in the community have a responsibility to consider 'mental capacity' in specific circumstances and effect, as well as in more general respects, surrounding the problems and risks the person is facing. Police officers have this obligation, as well as all professionals, family members any other member of the community who become aware of this evidenced 'lack of mental capacity'.
For this 'Vulnerable Adult' status to be realistically recognised, the person has to be identified as 'Vulnerable' by a Statutory Service. But no appropriate service is in place. This should not 'need' to be necessary but it is just another 'reality' of the highly specialised professionalised system. It doesn't happen. They (we) are on their own. As a 'Victim' of crime, other Police Officers have recognised this person's vulnerable status, as has a subsequent Professional.
If there were a Professional involvement and an adequate 'broader' assessment undertaken, this persistent and progressive situation is less likely to have arisen. It is not an isolate case. The social and community implications are substantial. Fundamental 'Human Rights' are 'required' to be addressed, to reduce the 'risks' of criminal involvement AND criminal victimisation. POSSIBLE PROGRESSIVE MENTAL BREAKDOWN OF THE SERVICE USER.
The progressive breakdown of the Service User's mental health is a real risk. It has happened before and is currently managed well by the GP and tentative voluntary involvement. The pressures are now greater than can be adequately mediated by medication alone, but not yet Substantial, or Critical, which would entitle them to get an increased specialist service. Voluntary support just holds the situation at each progressive stage of crisis.
The increased risk of the Abuse of Alcohol & Drugs becomes real once more, contributing to further potential breakdown, but this problem comes under a different service umbrella. It also has not reached Substantial, or Critical in that services terms. The person is still active in keeping control of this problem. Again, voluntary support just holds the situation at each progressive stage of crisis.
The person still finds the whole process distressing and demoralising. Various attempts (with voluntary support) to establish legitimate employment and recreational activity have been undermined by other's continued criminal activity. Police support has been poor-to-absent. There is clear prejudice, based upon previous criminal 'guilt' (including admissions of guilt to reduce immediate distress) and other 'alleged' and 'suspected' criminal activity 'by association'.
The person returns to being partially dependent upon those who still show the most consistent interest & they again become 'scapegoats' for illegal activities they naively, jointly engage in, or they are naively & inadvertently drawn into. Eventually, the smallest accusation, by those who know of the person's vulnerability and 'history', are taken to have credibility. Getting out of the cycle of abuse and prejudice remains difficult, even with help provided voluntarily.
It is argued to be less distressing to 'go along with Legal Advice' and 'Plead Guilty' to alleged crimes they have been associated with (whether culpable, or not). The naivety of Learning Difficulties (and anyone else who is otherwise de-sensitised, disempowered and 'socially excluded' in the way described above) is to consider 'Pleading Guilty' as being the least distressing course of action. 'Get it all out the way', is the typical personal justification, almost parroting the poor advice they are given (if we recognise their lack of 'mental capacity').
Police are aware of this general state of affairs (as are Solicitors). It is an easy option; it clears up cases and does so at minimal cost to the courts and legal services. It is even typically expressed, in this person's terms, that the treatment under Police and Courts is no less beneficial than the inadequate service they are getting else where. What a sad state of affairs. We are returning to the practices of a previous time. The treatment under the courts can actually be less distressing than extended treatment under the Mental Health Act (another sad 'fact').
The Police and Courts at least show some interest and provide some respite? In the absence of adequate Professional Assessment and Involvement, it leaves Police & Courts with few other options in many respects. Referral to the services 'for reports' meet the same kind of 'Specialist Criteria' problems outlines earlier. No one is looking at the 'Composite' picture, they are all 'blinded' specialists. POSSIBLE PROGRESSIVE MENTAL BREAKDOWN OF THE CARERS (& VOLUNTEERS). They MAY withdraw their support to protect themselves from this persistent level of stress and distress. They are often advised to do so to protect their own health and even the possibility of 'guilt' by association. Many professionals do not understand, or even trust, such an extensive commitments. There is considerable cynicism and in some respects this is understandable. Some people do abuse these 'apparent' supportive roles and some people are inclined to 'exaggerate' the nature of problems, to compensate for the 'system' resistance and cynicism.
There is also little Police, or Legal appreciation of attempts to point out injustice, including that which arises due to failure to identify problems that make a person 'vulnerable'. Solicitors will often 'quietly' advise that there is little point in taking action against police negligence, or injustice. Courts are not 'sympathetic' to such criticism. This is because the 'abusers' of the court systems (including some defence lawyers) have undermined confidence in the 'legitimate' complaints of 'real' abuse. We all pay the price for the 'abuse' of natural sympathy for mitigating circumstances.
Those Professionals who put themselves out on a limb, in an attempt to compensate for the institutional shortfalls, are also put at such risks. Step outside 'the conceptual professional box' and you have little institutional protection! One reason for this is the implication that 'other' professionals may be seen to be 'negligent' in not engaging these problems 'against Institutional advice' (and in spite of Ethical prerogatives to do so). You are basically, often on your own. RISK OF FURTHER INDICTMENTS FOR ALLEGED CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR, CONSTITUTING AN FURTHER WITNESSED MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE, WITH POSSIBILITY OF IMPRISONMENT. Here are some Recent Historical Details of Our Example:
Having been advised to plead guilty to criminal activity, because you were told that you will not be believed against police evidence; You are a poor witness, have a record (much of it very 'dubious' and not independently confirmed and some of it independently witnessed as a miscarriage of justice). You were told you would probably be found guilty in the absence of a guilty plea, will get a harsher sentence, given your previous admissions (having also been advised then to plead guilty to things you may have not done, or it was known you did not do, in the past), although you don't remember ,or recognise, doing anything wrong in many instances, including the current case being considered.
On this occasion you stood up for yourself, because you felt paranoid, when police banged on your door, while you were just waking up. When the Officer refused to tell you why he was calling (witnessed by your support worker). The door was opened by the support worker, and the Officer (who is alone) proceeded to ‘rant’ at you. You came to close the door and said you were not going to put up with this harassment any more.
You became even more 'paranoid' and clearly distressed, when he attempted to smash your door down (the third time this year) in spite of the fact that the attendant support worker asked the Officer to hold back until you have been settled down. Having explained to the Officer that you were actually 'paranoid', were being treated for mental health problems and had learning difficulties, known even, to some of his colleagues. You lost your temper and insisted you would not let him in now, because you had enough (apparently, unreasonably according to the officer) and he called in his colleagues. You had made no threatening moves towards the Officer during ‘his’ verbal assault, his continued insistence to say nothing about why he wanted to interview you and his continued attempts to smash the door in, although constantly advised not to by your support worker. Your one tangential ‘threat’ to the officer (if it can even be described as that) was by your picking up a length of wood that you intended to use (as you usually do), to prop the door shut, to stop people bursting in (including criminals and unreasonable & aggressive police officers). The action was to raise it 'horizontally' and give a 'pushing motion towards the officer, but not necessarily 'at' him, while insisting he leave you alone. Your support worker took the ‘prop’ (with no resistance from you) and he advised you to go & get dressed, as the support worker opened the door to the officer once more. As the Support Worker explained the situation once more, you started to walk to your bedroom & 'turned your head' to say you have had enough of 'this harassment' and having you door smashed in. While your support worker was still explaining your situation and that you needed to mentally prepare yourself to be interviewed, the Officer used the Pepper Spray, directly and persistently into your face, without reasonable provocation, or good reason, other than anger and frustration (not to mention ignorance and lack of insight). Your reaction was panic mixed with anger, almost hysterical, in keeping with the unreasonable and disproportionate behaviour of the Officer and assault that you had subsequently experience from him. The 'police support' which then attended was again disproportionate, at the instigation of the arresting office, who only then state his purpose for attending, after you were on the floor, tightly handcuffed and legs bound. You are accused of a driving offence (that you subsequently readily admit). These final acts was total provocation, apparently in order to generate evidence of assault on a police officer reduced (in the fuller recognition of the events) to an affray, perhaps because of retrospective 'reflected', recognition of a support worker presence and an 'open' witness statement (not fully disclosed in terms of the full police action, because of potential reprisals towards the person).
This current statement more fully represents the actions of the Officer and the subsequent actions of the police attending, on the basis of the original Officer's assertions.
THE INVOLVED INSTITUTIONS AND PROFESSIONALS SEEN AS INCOMPETENT AND UNCARING, IN NOT PROVIDING AN ADEQUATE 'JOINED UP' SERVICE AND SUPPORT TO A VULNERABLE ADULT. THE PRINCIPLES OF 'MIND THE GAP' ARE WHOLLY MISSING. Some Earlier History May Illustrate This Possibility:
This is someone who has experience serial injustice, undeserved punishment and harassment, in addition to punishment he obtained for the admitted & acknowledge, petty crimes, conducted prior to the last 2 years.
These actions and inactions, of police and Statutory Services are jeopardising this person's essentially good behaviour and subsequent, selfless, valuable community contributions to those in similar need to himself.
The failing of this person's self initiated 're-enablement' and 'rehabilitation' is because of the inadequate 'social care' involvement, even at the request of the ‘custody officers' at the police station, while dealing with previous, unsupported allegations from and embittered ex-girlfriend.
This is the latest of a series of 'evidenced' unjust, or exaggerated accusations by a series of embittered perpetrators of crime, and others who feel this person is the cause, or a justified 'victim' for their own misadventures. Victims do tend to become 'victimised'. It is a 'pecking order' human characteristic. The person is easy to accuse and quick to accept responsibility for any accusation made of him. He has stood as police witness of criminal activity toward others and himself and has subsequently paid a personal price, with inadequate 'protection' as a police witness. This person has even prosecuted, along with the acknowledged perpetrator of a crime, in a case where he had given evidence to the police. This was in circumstances where 'he' had been deceived into participate in an illegal act. It was clearly a case not taking account his 'lack of mental capacity' to understand the implications of the 'manipulated actions' that seemed to implicate him. As a consequence of this serial injustice, he now has an additional record, that is in no way legally justified but will make him vulnerable for the least indiscretion, or false allegation, provoking him to react defensively and aggressively, because of his paranoia, his asthma and phobia and fear of potentially being confined closed spaces. The chances of this person surviving under the current circumstances, without further provoked injustice and without further, unjust and inappropriate police and court actions, are slim. Unless substantial help is provided, beyond that of the Voluntary Community Support and Probation Service support that he is currently getting.
POLICE SEEN AS OVER REACTING AND DEMONSTRATING EXCESSIVE FORCE FOR INADEQUATE REASONS, IN ORDER TO OBTAIN AN INTERVIEW, AT AN INAPPROPRIATE TIME, CONCERNING AN ALLEGED DRIVING OFFENCE.
This case of 'an affray' and a 'motoring offence', is currently going to court and has serious implications concerning the previous 'unjust' guilty finding, as described in the case previously cited. The roll on effect is that the person could go to prison for the apparent 'cumulative' effects of crimes. It is as if there is little hope of breaking the cycle of neglect and injustice.
The current Solicitor's advice is to contest the affray charge (given the full evidence), but the cumulative affect of the 'admitted' motoring offense (the only legitimate offence he has been charged with in the last two years) will be enough to take him to prison, unless mitigation, due to 'lack of mental capacity', or some other reasonable assessment is accepted.
A challenge of previous miscarriage of justice is very unlikely, because it will be argued that he is unlikely to be successful.
These circumstances could be enough to take the person back into a cycle of conscious minor criminal behaviour and inept association with more serious crime. He is always keen to make and keep friends and to please 'help' when asked, even where this get him into trouble.
His trust in the 'System' has now largely evaporated once more. There are those who are always there for him but some of these are not good for his future rehabilitation and/or recovery from distress, disability and crime. Many of them are similar victims of the system, others are just straight forward bullies and criminals.
Some police officers (actually a small minority) refuse to see the injustice of continued focus on this person as the 'instigator' of crime. There is some small hope that we can get the local force to recognise the inappropriateness of perusing him in this way and recognise his vulnerable status for the future. That is what I am seeking to have happen anyway. 01/10/2008
Since the previous report there has been one positive result. Our Client has now had a proper Community Care assessment and is being referred back into two of the more appropriate services that could meet his needs and reduce the potential for his continued inappropriate treatment. There is some recognition now of his complex needs and vulnerability, when we consider the combination of problems he has.
If this can be communicated to the Police this will give them the professional assessment that will enable them to take a different tack in the future; possible along Vulnerable Adult lines. I hope so. Our subject of this account has since been registered as disabled and carries a letter to this effect. I have limited hopes that he will be picked up by any services, other than probation.
I will be persisting to get services to recognise how these gaps are not being filled, as recommended in the HMG "Mind the Gap" document. 14/10/2008
Today we attendance at Court for the two outstanding charges that our Client is facing. One is a the Motoring Offence which he accepts and pleads guilty to. The other is the case of Affray, which I am seeking to give evident in defence (as an attending witness) and which our client (with his solicitor's agreement) is planning to plead not guilty to. It appears that the original planned charge has been reduced to the lower level of Affray, because my witness statement was ambiguous and was seen as unsupportive of any more serious charge. This charge is still inappropriate.
When I give evidence, I do so in a fair and impartial way; answering Police questions honestly but holding back any defensive statement until I have agreed with our Client and their their Solicitor. In this case I believed that the Police officer was in error in his approach and rather naive in interpreting the reaction of our Client. This is on the basis that the Police Officer took and aggressive and inappropriate approach to questioning and arrest, ignoring advice from myself (Support Worker / Advocate) as described above and ignoring established guidelines.
My attempts to engage with the defence solicitor was inhibited because I had been registered as a witness for the prosecution. This has happened in a previous case where I wanted to operate as a witness in the defence. In these instances it makes it impossible to speak with the defence solicitor unless you first get to talk with the prosecution solicitor. Talking to the prosecution solicitor is also very difficult, because they are usually busy in court and remain difficult to access, even if you put in a request. Working as a support worker and trying to talk with the defence solicitor became almost impossible and justice was not served.
This seems to be a tactical approach to avoid releasing prosecution witnesses. It operates as a 'Gagging Order' stopping the 'witness' representing for the defence. If it is not the case then there is a serous error in the justice process, as it effectively inhibits the proper defence of the person in these instances. I am aware that in the two cases I have attended court for, I had been registered as witness for the prosecution, I was never informed of this and was unaware of that status until I attended the court. It seriously inhibited justice in both cases.
At the attendance on this day the case was deferred, because our Client was in poor health, having been serious assaulted and battered, once more, outside his flat. Following this Court attendance, I made a phone call to the local Police Control Centre, saying that I was concerned about the persistent miscarriage of justice I had observed with my Client (Now 3 incidents where I and others were present and could confirm that the Client was did not engage in the criminal activity they were accused of). I reported the poor service that he and I have both received as victims and witnesses.
I registered my concerns in these respects and the fact that both he and I have been intimidated and assaulted on a number of occasions for having given evidence for the prosecution in cases we had become aware of, and for other unjust reasons. This intimidation included 4 car thefts, other thefts and interference in legitimate work operations. I complained that the police response to these events has been slow and inadequate and in two case, affecting myself as well as the client, there was no follow up to persistent assaults and intimidation at all.
I asked that a request be made to the appropriate Police Force / Team for a Community Police Officer to make arrangements to visit and discuss these problems and support our Client in coping with all these events, including the persistent police actions. I was assured that the Controller would email the appropriate team to request that this happen. It was agreed that they would contact me in the first instance to arrange an appropriate meeting with our Client.
There has been no such response over 1 week later (23/10/2008) 23/10/2008
Today I attended court with our Client in the case described above. I had been ill for the previous week and was still unwell but wanted to produce the above evidence as part of our Client's defence. I had hoped to get to meet with the Prosecuting Solicitor in order to advise them that my witness would be hostile to the prosecution and that I wished to make a further statement in our Client's defence.
My attempts to get a meeting with Prosecution (via the Defence Solicitor and Court Clerk) failed and I eventually put my statement to the Probation Officer who was to be involved in the Guilty Plea sentencing. I explained my concerns to the Probation Officer and they agreed to submit my additional witness statement to the Prosecution Solicitor. I did not get any meeting with them.
Our Client's Solicitor was advised that Prosecution had reduced the charge to 'Assault Simplica', which is a rarely used charge these days and does not imply an 'Actual Assault', but a reasonable concern that the assault would take place. This was a further reduction in the intended charge which, although is much less serious, was still one that would add to our Client's record.
The implications of this is that police will have a further basis for continued suspicion in this respect for the future, putting his continued community support in jeopardy. Our Client was now advised, by his Solicitor, to proceed with a 'Guilty' plea to this lesser charge. I did not fully agree with this advice, given the additional loading to his criminal record.
In the court it appeared clear that some of my concerns had reached the Prosecution Solicitor, as their presentation of the new Charge was tempered with a clear definition, to the magistrates, of the significance of the reduced charge; indicating that no assault actually took place. Our client then initially pleaded Not Guilty when the new charge was read out to him, as he heard and understood only that he was being charged with an Assault on the Police Officer (which he still insisted he did not do).
Once the significance of the new charge was fully explained to him he agreed to pleading Guilty to the Assault Simplica. This meant that he was pleading guilty to both Charges, including the Motoring Offenses he was not contesting. The further representation of the Prosecution and Defence Solicitors and the attendant Probation officer, led the court to be lenient on all charges and a custodial sentence was avoided. Instead he was sentenced to Curfew with a Tagging Order for 4 months. 24/10/2008
Thankfully, in this latest instance, the most serious consequence of this series of events was avoided. The only remaining concerns are that this addition of 'assault' to his criminal record may incline Police Officers to suspect him in cases of assault in the future, where there has been no past history; except for a previous incident where he was encouraged to plead guilty to a charge where I (and at least 4-6 others) was also a witness to the fact that no assault took place by our client, but by the accuser. My other concerns are that there has still been inadequate support in the persistent intimidation, assaults and thefts we have both suffered from local criminals, in the last two months in particular. One of these assaults was very serious and involved 3 people assaulting our client in the presence of myself, my 10 year old son and another Client. They used the threat of glass bottles to intimidate and strike him with and then proceeded to punch and kick him. I intervened and was then assaulted on three separate occasions receiving a broken rib, bruises and a bleeding nose and mouth. Based upon these recent experienced, with this client and other cases I have been involved with and researched, I am now concerned that some local Police 'Beat' Officers may be inadequately trained in interpreting and understanding the principles of the Mental Capacity Act, as it affects people with Mental Health problems and Learning Difficulties. Previous knowledge and training in the Mental Health Act should have made officers aware of their duties in these areas of vulnerability. Custody Suit officer and Vulnerable Adult teams we have been involved with in these and other respects, have been exemplary. The response of our client has been very cooperative, although he has remained inclined to admit to anything where he is advised to do so, even when he is unclear of the alleged offence and his participation in it. I know this because I have been the Appropriate Adult in a number of these investigations now and unwitting, a material witness to the fact he was not involved in all but one of these alleged offenses. I also remain concerned with the on-going implications of another serious Miscarriage of Justice; Our Client was encouraged to plead guilty to false' charges of Fraud and Deception, in six counts, where he had provided evidence to the prosecution on the theft of cars, which police then alleged he had been knowingly involved in the disposing of for scrap (activity he was then involved in productively and legitimately for more than a year).
This charge focused upon the fact that our Client used an 'assumed name' that he (known to local police) always used for this purpose, because of the fear he had that DVLA would be critical of him working with cars in any way. This 'fear' was a result of the combination of his Learning Difficulties, a natural misunderstanding of what was required of him, and 'paranoia', due to his diagnosed Mental Health problems. He was very open about this fear and disclosed it readily but it was interpreted as excuse.
He did acknowledge dispose of these cars for scrap, believing them to have been obtained by someone else he had invited into 'the Project' and who I had clearly advised how to do this legally, through request to the owners. This approach had resulted in processing as many abandoned and disused cars at the project was able to handle and provided ample cars for training and experience purposes; including mechanics and repair. There was no need for any other 'illegal' approach.
Ironically, in this previous case, one of the vehicles listed as stolen had been reported stolen from ourselves; in the same community project I was supporting our Client with, and for which I was again disabled from being witness to the defence because (unknown to me) I had been registered as a witness for the prosecution. This project had kept him and others, free of offenses for 18 months, a fact acknowledge by other local Police Officers. I am generally concerned with the use of these latest policing guidelines, arranged to create speedy, summary justice. Unfortunately, especially in the more vulnerable cases, we get summary injustice instead, and often not so speedy. The combination of a number of recent policing initiatives and changes in attitudes, has produced a serious problem for policing and justice, especially for those least able to provide a defence, even where they are evidentially not culpable. Some unjust and prejudiced consequences have little to do with 'competence' however.
In some cases 'evidence' is actually ignored, as a consequence of following the locally 'interpreted' government policy on criminal process and dealing with reports of domestic violence especially. The combination of 'zero tolerance' attitude of some officers (whether policy or not), linked with an aggressive attitude towards 'alleged' domestic violence, coupled further with 'summary justice', has produced serious injustices. I have witnessed these both in terms of police practice and court process.
Some of these cases have been reported to me, some I have directly observed myself in my research and community work and some I have directly, personally experienced within a seriously abusive relationship, over a 12 year period. Others direct experience were gained in seeking assistance with threats and actual violent assaults, perpetrated towards me in the pursuance of my Community Project and Advocacy work. These typical reactions were not evident in my practice as a Public House & Club Licensee.
To take a combination of all three aspects, it is first appropriate to acknowledge that 'Domestic Violence' legislation and guidelines were primarily (but not exclusively) geared towards protecting women in Violent and other Abusive relationships. That said, it was not assumed that 'evidence' and 'lack of evidence' was to be ignored by Police Officers. It was also noted, in the legislation and guidelines that domestic abuse, in various forms, affected both men and women, in heterosexual and same sex relationships. This has clearly not been adequately addressed in Abuses towards men.
The critical consequences of these attitude is that women can, if they choose, use this policing process to Manipulate, Control and Abuse their partners and to cover up their own inadequate, or abusive parenting for years. It also means that men, who report abusive behaviour are largely ignored, no actions taken, or can even generate antagonistic reactions from police. I personally know of no successful support from police, following attempts to counter dishonest assertions by female partners, or police investigation of abuse perpetrated towards men in heterosexual relationships.
The latest feature is where men have been described to Manipulate and Emotionally & Psychologically Abuse women; feigning physical and psychological abuse towards themselves as a cover. Middle class, intellectually competent men do seem to manage to get some mileage out of this approach, although the cases I have researched have usually been resolved to the satisfaction of the abused person. In the mean while, children are often used as part of this manipulation, damaging relationships with both parents as a consequence, along with inappropriate learning regarding relationships.
Where this has not happened there has been serious psychological and emotional consequences for the abused person and any children involved. I has lead to mental breakdown and alcohol abuse, or increasing use of alcohol, and loss of children to the abusive parents. These situations are particularly worrying as children are invariably affected emotionally and psychologically, whatever the ultimate outcome.
Too much emphasis is placed upon the 'physical' side of abuse. Psychological and Emotional Abuse, like bullying, 'head games', controlling behaviour & manipulation, are known to have a far more serious long term effects upon victim and any children involved. This has been evident to me for over 50 years of involvement in family and interpersonal abuse and substantiated by my own and other's more recent research. To test out these prejudices, both as an Advocate and in representing myself and Clients in my dealing with Police and Courts, I have tested various approaches. I have sometimes approached these institutions as an ordinary 'average' citizen, sometimes as a professional, sometimes as a local counsellor and sometimes as an apparent member of a subculture (long haired hippy type), associating with drug users, alcoholics and those involved in crime (as part of my work). All these social roles are true of me and I sometimes dressed typically to that role and sometimes did not. There were clear differences in response that could be detected, sometimes quite dramatic, although a basic core of Police Officers, Officials of Courts and other Community Services, remained courteous and fair, in as much as they could expect to be. Where there was a prejudiced, or unreasonably delayed response these were sometimes quite dramatic and had quite powerful effects upon due process and sometimes on outcomes.
As I further declared my wider interests and professional roles, I could usually see an improved attitude and improved response but this was not always the case. The attitudes of some were intractable and not serving justice, mostly through ignorance. In instances where I have presented as a member of the subculture I have almost been invisible and responses to an incident I reported, where an assailant had left the scene but remained and continued to intimidate, in the immediate locality, were responded to in 5 days. This person was drunk and was driving his car up and down the road at the location where my family live and where I was parked. A subsequent report to the Control Centre produced no response at all. In other instances of Actual Bodily Harm, Assault and Battery and Theft, there was no follow up at all after the initial attendance at the scene, after the affray (reported by one of the victims of the affray). On this occasion I had declared myself as a Community Support Worker to the attending police officer, who was very polite, professional and respectful. Instances of reported stolen cars, where we were able to give very full details and evidence, were resounded to very promptly, typically within half an hour. In most instances the attending officer was very polite and respectful, although follow up on the evidence we provided seems to have been put on the back burner because other thefts by the same people were being investigated. As a result we lost the cars and significant and expensive, personal property that was contained in one of my personal vehicles that was stolen. Instances where I have been involved in reporting crimes perpetrated towards a Client I was supporting, the response was usually good when I was involved as a Community Support Worker but responses dropped off when I was just an observer. In those cases where there was a serious failing of duty, this usually extended to very poor and disrespectful dismissive attitude. Usually corrected when I declared myself as a professional. In one case it was corrected by a second officer who was in attendance. I rarely used my position as Town or District Counsellor (now resigned), because I wanted to observe the service that ordinary members of the community experience. In the few occasions I did disclose this role, the attitudes were much improved generally but outcomes did not necessarily improve, even where there was a clear case (according to my direct observations and evidence) that the person was not guilty.
This was mostly because of the poor understanding of the 'Mental Capacity Act' obligations and the local, limited interpretation of 'Summary Justice' as encouraged through the guilty plea and the restriction on evidence caused by recording witnesses as witnesses for the prosecution. Local Community Services and available Specialist Support, for for people with these combinations of 'borderline' problems, are confounded by fragmented 'specialist' health & social services and their 'funding criteria'. These services now operate largely on a 'purchasing basis', from contracted service suppliers, wishing to stay in budget, having put in 'undercutting' bid and then managed available budgets badly. This Client is unlikely to get consistent and contiguous support. LATEST UPDATE:
Our example Client has survived the last 18 months of distress, misadventure and injustice and has retained his commitment to staying out of trouble. He has tended to go back to drinking during this stressful period and if this continues he is prone to break his bail arrangements, which involves a 4 month curfew for the motoring offence.
He now has the Motoring offence on his record and 3 other offences for which he was not culpable. In addition he has been interviewed by police on at least 3 other occasions for malicious statement from a ex-girlfriend. These may well be recorded and this information confound the local police expectations of him. People in authority now tend to judged him on the basis of his record and his 'reaction' to felt injustice and insensitive approaches.
We will have to wait and see.
The story will continue, next episode is already under way. It makes interesting reading, I promise you. The story will not stop there, I am sure it will go on and I will keep you up to date. Authors Note:
Conspiring takes up to much effort, requires dynamic organisation and quite sophisticated thinking. It is unlikely to ever happen in health and social care. MOST OF WHAT I DESCRIBE ABOVE IS COCK UPS AND SELF DECEPTION. The consequences are the progressive result of too many promises with too little insight and little realistic commitment, matched by allocating resources to protect the institution and the 'body professional', at the expense of the Service User, in the pretence that it in the Service Users best interests CRAP, CRAP CRAP - Conspiracy, my arse - blind ignorance is more like it. :-)  This page is in the stage of preparation.
| NOTE: This Document is still at some stage of development. You are invited to respond and comment on its content and its logic. If you return to the document at a future date, you will be able to see its continued development, hopefully reflecting your own and others commentary. I thank you, in advance, for any contribution that you make. Please also feel free to visit and contribute, in any valid way, to these and other social issues, through our Forums. There is also a Chat Room and protected Chat Space for more serious group discussions and individual counselling. Please feel free o use this space for your legitimate activities. Copyright: Although you will see very few reference to other formal writings in this document, I acknowledge general recognition to the discussions and debates that I have had with students, practitioners and clients over the years. Most of the ideas and theory has evolved through this rather pragmatic process (operational research), rather than any formal reading. If any content of this document describes concepts, theory, or ideas that have been established else where, (prior to my writing, either here or else where - in part or in full), I acknowledge their entitlement to claim them as their intellectual property for financial purposes, if they can evidence this. I also reserve the right to retain them as my intellectual property, with due recognition to those who have made direct contributions, including other writers, should I identify such a past influences. Other than this, I invite you to share and copy any content, to the benefit of intellectual debate and the benefit of individuals and groups, without restriction, other than it be used for constructive purpose, in the wider context of my writing. Should you wish to use any material presented here 'as is', I ask that you then make reference to myself and the web site. The 'Reading Date' would be a useful 'publishing date' for the Current Edition. 1980 is the core publishing date for most of the basic ideas and theory (unless stated otherwise). This 'Reading Date' may be an important part of this 'reference', as the document (by its 'internet fluid' nature) will be constantly changing and this may affect meaning and interpretation, for those following up on such a reference at a later date. Thank you for your cooperation. TRC. eMail: terry.couchman@visitweb.org |
