The Royal College of Psychiatrists has published a report on mentally disordered offenders in the criminal justice system. They provided a position statement on customising community sentencing for offenders with mental disorder/s.
The report states that there are thousands of people in prison because there were no safer alternatives available, such as a mental health treatment requirement (MHTR), when they were sentenced.
The Royal College is seeking £12 million in funding from the government so that such requirements are available for those who need them.
The lead author of the report, Professor Pamela Taylor, said
“Too many people with mental disorders who get involved with criminal justice are being failed by a system that overlooks the use of Mental Health Treatment Requirements. Sending them to prison for quite minor offences may be dangerous for the offender-patients and may harm the wider community too. Re-offending rates are high when people are locked away for a short period while their problems remain unsolved or increase.”
There is evidence of a relationship between some mental disorders and offending behaviour and a disproportionate number of people in prison with mental disorders relative to the rest of the population.
It was estimated in the report that 1,600 people serving a prison sentence of less than 12 months would have been eligible for an MHTR. If a requirement had been imposed, there would likely have been a better outcome for the offender. A further 6,400 prisoners serving longer than 12 months may also have been eligible.
A community order with a requirement is more likely to be considered an alternative to a short prison sentence. Research has shown that two-thirds of those subject to short sentences re-offend within 12 months. This is compared to a third of men and 15% of women given a community order with an MHTR.
There is a cost-saving to consider as keeping a person in prison is more expensive than releasing that person on a community sentence.
Less research is available on mentally disordered offenders under supervision, but the figure is thought to be high with needs not being met.
MHTRs have been available as a sentencing option for quite some time in England and Wales. Such requirements can only be imposed on a person who has the capacity to understand the court proceedings, the sentence proposed and agrees to the requirements before they are imposed. The requirement should not be confused with a community treatment order under mental health legislation which is compulsory inpatient care.
An MTHR can provide a framework for access to therapy, probation and social services support and can be imposed as part of a community order for a maximum of three years. Any community sentence is to be customised to meet the offender’s needs and the community and minimise the risk of re-offending.
An MHTR usually requires attendance, and it would be unusual for particular treatments to be specified. The clinician would meet with the offender and complete a full assessment of mental health and associated social needs and treat the disorder.
Back in 2009, the case of Khan recognised that there was a low recognition of the availability and value of MHTRs, and efforts have been made to improve uptake. Part of this drive included the CSTR programme in pilot areas, now to be expanded in a second wave. The programme allows for primary care practitioners and clinical psychologists to provide individualised psychological interventions within a treatment plan. The programme aims to improve underlying health and social problems by developing paths to improve screening, assessment and treatment delivery and to enhance local partnerships and communication between health and criminal justice services.
The CTSR programme aims to reduce re-offending by providing alternatives to short custodial sentences. The suggestion from the preliminary evaluation of the programme is that there has been a rise in MHTRs. The protocol provided a clearer pathway for their use and introduced dedicated staff to court to help to identify and assess those eligible. The conclusion was that the pathway had filled a gap in service provision for those offenders with mental health issues and identified a gap in services for those with more serious mental health issues.
We ensure we keep up to date with any changes in legislation and case law so that we are always best placed to advise you properly. If you would like to discuss any aspect of your case, please contact Rhys Tudur on 01758 455 500 or email@example.com
Back to view all blog posts.