Thoughts on this.....
Posted 17 November 2012 - 03:34 PM
3/4 months ago a Man is arrested for a Breach of the Peace following calls from neighbours that a male was acting strangely in the street and being aggressive and abusive to anyone who tried to help.
Police arrive to speak with male and try to calm him. He reacts angrily and starts lashing about. Physical contact with 2 officers during this and he is CS sprayed and force is used. There are no visible injuries to the Officers. It then becomes clear there are some severe mental health problems and the person is disassociated and dillusional and thinks he is in contact with the devil and can summon fire and water from the earth.
In custody the male continues to display all these issues and a mental health assessment is completed and he is sectioned from custody.
The evidence review Sergeant has reveiwed the matter and read the mental health assessment and deems that the matter has little or no chance of a successful prosecution due to his state of mind at the time of the incident and has recommended that the matter be NFA'd.
However, other supervision are saying that the defendant needs to be interviewed prior to NFA even though they know the matter will be NFA'd. Stating that it covers any future civil lit as he is interviewed.
I won't post my thoughts, or what Ive done. But what would you do, and what do you think should happen?
Posted 17 November 2012 - 05:41 PM
Very extensive notes need to be made.
To cover officers.
Posted 17 November 2012 - 06:34 PM
Posted 17 November 2012 - 07:12 PM
What would they be able to give as the grouds for authorising detention? The charging decision has been made so the determining if there is sufficient evidence to charge grounds are out. Obtain evedicence by questioning? We have to have some sort of believe that we might be able to obtain this evidence. If someone and I think it is clear from this case you wont.
The interview doesn't really add a lot assist the officers regarding a use of force. That will be lawful or not depending entirely on what they felt at the time of the incident and legally what is said in the defendant's interview should make very little difference. Obviously we would like him on tape saying he intended to hurt the officers but I can't see how we can get him into interiew
Posted 19 November 2012 - 06:04 PM
The arrest was disposed of via Section 136. NOD and it was just a BOP in the 1st place...
If someone is so mentally incapable of mens rea at the time (if there had been an offence) that they were sectioned, how on earth can they be IV'd over the incident 1) they prob won't remember the incident and 2) whats the point anyway its disposed of
Posted 20 November 2012 - 05:19 PM
But it is a difficult one - because if he is sectioned, then it's impossible to interview him due to his mental state. But as he was deemed to be sectionable (and in my area, for a person to be sectioned is almost impossible, so he really must have been mentally extremely disturbed), then I think the officers could / would realise it isn't appropriate to try to interview, and therefore NFA is the only decision. As Sammy D mentioned too - mens rea ... needs to be taken account of in the decision making.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users