Serious Assault Charges Dropped Against Vulnerable Client After Successful Representations
We represented a vulnerable client, A, who faced charges of grievous bodily harm (GBH) and two counts of actual bodily harm (ABH) following an incident which arose during a mental health crisis.
Background
A had contacted emergency services whilst experiencing suicidal thoughts. Police officers attended and detained her under section 136 of the Mental Health Act, before escorting her to hospital for assessment and care.
Whilst at the hospital, A attempted to go to the toilet but was prevented from doing so by officers, who then attempted to physically restrain her. During the struggle, a glass bottle A was holding fell to the floor and smashed, resulting in injuries to the officers involved.
A was subsequently arrested and charged with GBH and two counts of ABH in relation to the officers’ injuries.
The Defence Case
Given the clear concerns regarding A’s mental health at the time of the incident, psychiatrist, Dr Bradley Hillier and psychologist, Dr Terri Van Leeson of Pathway Psychological Services were instructed on her behalf.
The experts agreed that A was extremely vulnerable and suffering from serious mental health difficulties at the relevant time. The expert evidence concluded that A would be able to rely upon a defence of insanity.
Written representations were submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), arguing that it was not in the public interest to continue the prosecution in light of the psychiatric evidence and surrounding circumstances.
Outcome
The CPS accepted the representations and offered no evidence in relation to all charges, bringing the proceedings to an end.
A was represented by Senior Supervising Caseworker, Kevin Williams, under the supervision of Partner, Will Russell, with Madeleine Wolfe of 2 Hare Court instructed as counsel.
This case highlights the importance of careful and compassionate decision making where criminal allegations arise out of mental health crises. It also serves as a reminder that prosecution is not always the appropriate response where vulnerability and acute psychiatric illness are at the heart of the case.