MHA amendments 2017. Removal for ‘Treatment’. Private Mental’s Ultimate Harvesting Tool.

sgt-leanne-chapman-mental-health-triage-team-west-midlands-police-david-ashford-head-of-clinical-practice-mental-health-3-638

An English man’s home is no longer his castle from Monday 11th December.

This historic bastion of common law refuge is weakened by Mental Health Act 2017 amendments.

As police can enter anyone’s home, be it tent or shed, and search for and remove an occupier to ‘a place of safety’ and provide any enforced ‘treatment’, if they suspect he is ‘ suffering from a mental disorder.

And he can then be detained interminably under the MHA or MCA .

This may seem beyond belief but it is terrifyingly true.

It gives the  Nanny State and private mental health services the ultimate power.

The Mental Health Act s135 allows such an ultimate, disproportionate interference with a person’s human rights- the removal of his legal competence ,

‘with a warrant’ obtained form a magistrate without notice,  if there

‘is reasonable cause to suspect that a person believed to be suffering from mental disorder’.

or ‘Is or has been, or is being, ill-treated, neglected

or kept otherwise than under proper control, in any place

or unable to care for himself is living alone ‘.

wordphttps://mentalhealthcop.ress.com/2017/03/03/the-new-section-135/

https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-new-section-136/

Police can however, enter any building,  if not a place where the person usually resides or any public building or indeed have the power in any public area- street, park, bus, train, school  Without a warrant.

under the amended s136 to detain a person for mental assessment as it states;

s136 (1) If a person appears to a constable to be suffering from mental disorder and to be in immediate need of care or control, the constable may, if he thinks it necessary to do so in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons

(a) remove the person to a place of safety within the meaning of section 135, or

(b) if the person is already at a place of safety within the meaning of that section, keep the person at that place or remove the person to another place of safety.

So now, if a constable sees an adult or child behaving, as if they have a ‘mental disorder’ in a  public place, and ‘feels it necessary’ in their interests, or of those around them, the police can remove that person and detain him at a ‘place of safety’ for assessment.

Warrants to enter and remove from a person’s own house, are now easier to obtain, on the evidence of ‘an approved healthcare professional’ which is very widely defined under s 135 .

Section 135 – Warrant to search for and remove patients.

(1) If it appears to a justice of the peace, on information on oath laid by an approved mental health professional, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that a person believed to be suffering from mental disorder—

Note a ‘mental disorder’, we have 375 to choose from, need not actually be proved.

It  is enough, if ”an approved mental health professional’, a vague term, which I assume could be anyone- paid carer, nurse with ‘mental health training’, again an unknown quantity, merely ‘suspects’, and it ‘appears’ to the Justice that this is the case.

So, effectively anyone ( who has had any ‘training’ in the vague term of ‘mental health’)

On virtually nothing (what is a mental disorder ? These are conduct disorders as what else is being assessed. So are social conduct is being controlled, and can lose us our liberty and legal competency.  Who is trained sufficiently to suspect a person has one and how ?)

Can obtain a warrant, if it merely ‘appears’ to a single magistrate without a hearing,to enter anyone’s house and remove them, or a person living there, be they under or over 18, assess them, forcefully medicate them, and detain for as long as, now mainly private NHS mental services, want.

If the poor unsuspecting wretch tries to escape during any part of his encagement process, including from any place of safety hospital, he can be ‘retaken’ into custody under s138.

https://mentalhealthcop.wordpress.com/2017/03/03/the-new-section-138/

These powers also apply to children defined as under 18 and override parental decisions and control over their own childrens treatment and place of residence.

An order under the Mental Capacity Act from the Court of Protection or an emergency care order if under 18 had to be obtained first but not anymore.

Worse still, this is in a country where mental services and hospitals are monopolies, owned by venture capitalists and run for maximum profit like Cygnet, Cambian and Acadia .

The Home Office and Department of Health ran a year-long consultation in 2014, but strangely, some might say it was because the private provision infrastructure was not yet in place, the Bill did not receive Royal Assent until 2017.

But despite the seismic affect of this law, it has received no press or media coverage.

Here is an official summary of the changes and shows that the system in policing Triages set up throughout the country already operating s136 pathways.

Click to access mental-health-letter-s135-s136-changes.pdf

Many MPs and Lords made various amendments, but one by one these were either defeated or withdrawn, and few amendments were actually made to the House of Commons draft of 2014.

800 years after the Magna Carta, anyone, including a child can be picked up in the street or shops, imprisoned, assessed and medicated, if it appears to a police person he is suffering from a mental disorder and needs care or control.

Anyone can be removed from their  own home by force  on the say so of any mental health worker employed by private corporations paid £13,000 a week guaranteed public money to ‘stabalise’ and detain him indeterminably.

A very dangerous audacious law, without any very necessary safeguards, that the public won’t know about until it is too late.

And who will remove a person from their ‘place of safety’ where not even deaths are investigated ?

There are no checks on now mainly private mental services and no one can complain or it would appear escape from their hospitals and enforced medication.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/the-disappeared-disabled-the-shocking-facts/

Even if a person has been forced out of their home, once out for example in police custody they may be detained for MHA against their will under s136

There is no requirement (anymore) to ‘find’ the person in a place to which the public have access. It’s now just about where the power was used.

thomas961611_10153800928906002_1927464821_n

Comments on net june 2018

Is it just me or is it a reality that the number of s136’s has rapidly increased since the changes in the law….. and that some people are put onto s136 who really don’t need to be- they would happily have gone to A&E and, in fact, did, but where put on s136. Then there are the people who have no Mental illness (I know the police aren’t mental health experts but…) and yet are placed on s136. It feels like the increase is great…… any figures on this?

When and does s136 detainment even end ?

Hi, a recent dilemma came to my attention, and leads me to ask opinions has to when a S136 comes to an end. P is brought to hospital under S136, is assessed by 2 doctors and an AMHP and a joint medical recommendation for S2 completed. Before the AMHP makes the application P confesses they have taken a substantive overdose that requires urgent medical attention. P is transported to medical hospital under S136 and the standing S136 is extended by the consultant psychiatrist. I questioned the legality of this action, as it is my understanding under S136(2a) that the purpose is to remove to a place of safety where P can be assessed and that when a decision is made to detain P becomes liable to be detained and therefore should have been detained before removal to hospital. One challenge of my hypothesises was Jones: “the person can be detained for the purpose of being examined by a doctor and interviewed by an AMHP in order that suitable arrangements can be made for his treatment or care. It is therefore the case that the detention can continue after the assessment has been completed until such time, within the permitted period, that the necessary arrangements have been put in place. The authority to detain under this section ends immediately if the doctor’s assessment leads her to conclude that the person is not mentally disordered. “… Any thoughts about this?

Recent comment on 136 april 2019

I notice when the police started using s136 in police custody on people who had originally been arrested for an offence but who were due to be diverted under the MHA after being ‘sectioned’ that a large number of AMHPs were writing in to police forces or giving feedback that you can’t use s136 after the assessment because s136(2) makes it clear that the purpose of s136 itself is to remove ‘for assessment AND arrangements’.

It was interestigng to be patronised out of various discussions arising from this point when I gave a hypothetical situation that looked remarkably to this one, as evidence of why AMHPs would be screaming for s136 after assessment if the circumstances suited them to call for it — it’s nice to see this thread vindicating the point I made but it’s still interesting how legal answers to legal questions often change depending on whether the implication of the answer in some people’s professionals interests or not.

Sorry, folks – I’ll admit to being fairly furious about the overall situation and how my colleagues are drawn in to this and often blamed when it goes wrong.

It’s compromising public safety in my view as well and it can’t continue.

 

19 Comments

  1. This is shocking beyond words and thank you very much indeed for this crucial information for any parent caring for child/adult with autism.

    Guess what too? Following a formal complaint to Police about removal of a protective marker against my son/my home being vulnerable and having autism, my solicitors discovered last week that Police instead put my son on it’s Police National Computer system admitting they had placed it under section of those with mental disorder. Join this up with this new Act is recipe for disaster for our adult children with autism being cared for at home or supported living being placed on PNC misrepresenting their autism having it flagged as a mental disorder.

    I really am shocked by this Act that a police constable can enter your home without a warrant and use force if necessary to detain someone on grounds of believing they have a mental disorder and need care or control. Truly truly shocking and terrifying.

    Reply

    1. Thank you for this. I am still reeling from the shock I only read about it today and was so insensed I had to write the post.
      It is beyond clear that successive governments from Blair and the mental capacity act are deliberately creating and making private profit from behaviour disorders and mental health. In 2009 autism including aspergers was added to the MHA within the definition of mental disorder so the autistic could be sectioned and earn now 13,000 a week for private mental hospitals. That is why the police put him there. Once you are diagnosed with a disorder or even have problems you are placed on secret computer registers like MASH and any comment can be put on it and you will be unaware of what is said so can’t challenge and even if you find out its not changed. Its a dire dire situation for everyone targeted the state now have absolute power and eyes everywhere- GPs, schools, hospitals, clubs, charities, community groups, neighbours……….. We need big political change. Best Wishes and thank you for your comment Finola

      Reply

    2. A police officer cannot enter your home without a warrant and use force to detain someone on the grounds of believing they have a mental disorder. If you read s136(1A) MHA it makes quite clear that the power officers have under s136 MHA can ONLY be used any place which is NOT a “House, flat or room where that person or another person, is living.”

      The ‘power of entry’ available to officers in (the new) s136(1B) is a power to enter and place where s136 may be exercised: there it CANNOT be used to enter a “house, flat or room where that person or another person, is living.”

      If you wish to see for yourself what the law actually says, it is freely available here to read – http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1983/20/section/136

      Inspector Michael Brown OBE
      Mental Health Coordinator.
      College of Policing.

      Reply

      1. Thank you for your comment.

        I have made some amendments to the post, please let me know if you still feel it is in any way misleading. And thank you for your useful link. Best Wishes Finola. i

  2. This is not a democratic country but as someone who stood up to bullying by joining the police and being on their training course, I still do not feel intimidated because I have found the police to have more understanding of my daughter than certain other professionals.

    Not so long ago we had my daughter home for over two years and certain professionals came into my home – one team infiltrating the other just to report nastily for court purposes and I showed mr Lamb some comments “let’s carry out a mha on the Mother using her GP”.

    Well i have no end of disturbing comments but the problem is it should work both ways – it is all very well treating a vulnerable person like a common criminal, but about the providers of certain care homes and private hospitals where abuse goes on. Do they tried to force return my daughter to a care home hundreds of miles away. They did this by making it impossible to get the drug clozapine anywhere to the point of withdrawal

    I’ve documented this in my story “get her back we are paying for that”. This just sums up the biased state of shocking abusive treatment the UK gives to the most weak and vulnerable people.

    I am ashamed to be British and not proud of the abuse going on in this country by professionals who should be there to care not bully.

    What we have encountered is just one area – Enfield – but this problem exists in many other areas of the UK too.

    I would though point out that despite mybgoid experience of police I am in touch with so many cases where others have not been treated well.

    Reply

  3. Finola If we (whoever “we” is) could just get autism and LD off the Mental Health Act. If only Everything that has happened to Martin is because the LA put a diagnosis of LD and autism on his records. The last assessments (October 2017) and judgment (in the public domain) were that he was autistic. Which, of couse, he isnt. I am still trying to get the judgments on Bailii .

    Reply

    1. Thanks Shirley.

      But as I say adding Autism in 2009 was deliberate. And you are right, often anyone who is a little different and uncommunicative, I’m not saying Martin is, can easily be diagnosed autistic that is why Cohen, Carpenter and another disgnosed a standard asperger test .

      I ve read reports from CAMHS of adopted children who suffer from attachment disorders being dignosed with it. It is so vague as to be a useful tool, as not only can it invoke MHA, it can, as you know attract MCA and allow removal of competency and control by COP for life.

      Keep trying with the judgement, I do not know which get on Bailii and which do not or how so transparency even is controlled. Let me know the mechanism. Keep warm and have as good a Christmas as you can as boy do you deserve it Best Wishes Finola

      Reply

      1. Finola getting a judgment on Bailii is a lottery. The judgment has to go, more or less, direct from the judge to Bailii. In the COP nothing goes direct from anyone to anywhere. I spent seven years chasing Charles’ judgments of 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2014 through the Court. I finally got all 4 in the public domain, but never on Bailii. Incidentally, I have had to pay myself for all the transcriptions under the present proceedings.

  4. Therefore, effectively, the judges/establishment choose which judgements are made public which means there can be little transparency, let alone accountability.

    More and more the courts appear to lack independence from the executive and if the public do not see what the COP are doing how can they know what is happening.

    All appears hidden deliberately, and MPs don’t want/can’t do anything about it, look how impotent they were over the MHA 17 amendments.

    We appear to have a country ruled by a few elite politically, who act in a cabal with the media and executive on side all ruling the roost.

    Thank you for your comment . All Judgements should be automatically provided anonymised

    Best Wishes Finola

    Reply

  5. The new law does NOT allow police officers to enter a person’s home, in most cases. See Section 136(1A) Mental Health Act below:

    “(1A) The power of a constable under subsection (1) may be exercised where the mentally disordered person is at any place, other than — (a) any house, flat or room where that person, or any other person, is living, or (b) any yard, garden, garage or outhouse that is used in connection with the house, flat or room, other than one that is also used in connection with one or more other houses, flats or rooms.”

    However, the law is not clear about situations where a person’s home is none of the above, such as a boat, van, yurt etc.

    Reply

  6. Actually, this is wrong. The police can only remove someone from their home with a S.135(1) warrant, which an AMHP has to obtain from a magistrate.

    And they have to convince a magistrate that the person has a mental disorder and that they are presenting with risks.
    They then have to be assessed within 24 hours, and either detained for 28 days under S.2, for up to 6 months under S.3, or released.
    Under S.136, they can now remove someone to a place of safety from anywhere except a private dwelling, but only if they believe the person has a mental disorder
    In other words, an Englishman’s home is still his castle.
    The main changes to S.135(1) relate to the time limit, which has actually been reduced. The police have been able to execute a warrant under S.135(1) since the MHA 1959.
    And it is still the MHA 1983 — the Policing & Crime Act simply amended S.135 & S.136.

    Reply

    1. Thank you for this.

      It does not however appear to need as you state

      ‘to convince a magistrate that the person has a mental disorder and that they are presenting with risks’

      It merely states;

      If it APPEARS to a justice of the peace
      on information on oath laid by an approved mental health professional, that there is REASONABLE CAUSE to SUSPECT that a person believed to be suffering from mental disorder—

      In view of the wide definition of ‘approved mental health profession’, and that they are likely to be employed or connected to the now mainly private for profit mental health facilities, which will be assessing and detaining the individual to gain huge amounts of public money, there is a very real danger of conflict of interests and the ease with which such warrants may be obtained with no safeguards in place. .

      The assessments you refer to are also conducted by those connected and usually employed by the private mental hospitals that will be detaining the person and are therefore subject to a similar conflict of interests.

      Reply

      1. The AMHP has to give reasons why there is “reasonable cause to suspect”, or the magistrate won’t issue a warrant.
        The assessments are conducted by an AMHP and at least one doctor. These are S.12 approved doctors, and as the assessment is in the community, they are not doctors from private hospitals hoping to admit to their units, either independent doctors or NHS doctors. An AMHP would certainly not condone detaining someone just so that a private hospital could make money.
        In reality, it’s very difficult to get a hospital bed, even if it is felt necessary to admit the person, and an AMHP’s first principle is to look at the least restrictive option, eg. involvement with a Crisis Team, as an alternative to hospital admission.
        AMHPs would not apply for a S.135(1) warrant unless they really thought, and had evidence to back it up, that someone was mentally disordered and at risk of harm to themselves and/or others. We don’t apply for warrants on a whim, especially as they cost £85 a time.
        Approved Mental Health Professionals are approved exclusively by local authorities. When acting as such, they are employed by the local authority, although acting independently. They are not employed by private organisations.

      2. Local Authorities are increasingly outsourcing their services to private companies, or as in Sheffield, the Health and Social Care Foundation Trust has been converted to a private company.

        They employ or refer to AMHPs for assessments and there is great pressure to gain the assessment they want.
        See my blog posts there are huge increases in those being detained and continuing to be detained and they effectively have no rights.

        We need actual figures on those being detained after such assessments, and for how long, and what happens to them and if their ‘treatment’ works.

        But this will be difficult to obtain as the provision is mainly private, so they are not subject to FOIA Notices.

        Where we have a situation were private hospitals can claim £13,000 a week in a secure ward ‘destabilising’ a person, often in cognito, we need proper safeguards and total independence of so called ‘mental health practioners.

        Is it possible to define, who qualifies for this title and how. I assume this could be a designated title what is their training therefore in mental health to have the power to label a person, enforce treatment and detain against a person’s will ?

  7. Refers of the post need to understand that many of the claims bring made here are badly misunderstood intepretations of the new laws. In fact, there is no more right for the police to enter and detain someone in their own home than there was before the changes.

    And there is no Mental Health Act 2017.

    Reply

  8. Reblogged this on finolamoss and commented:

    It appears the police are being used as the only mental health emergency help for those suffering from mental issues despite the extra millions the government have ploughed into NHS Health and Social Care Trusts many like Sheffield Health and Social Care are now private companies making profit out of our NHS.
    It has been reported that NHS trusts do not have crisis teams and are merely contacting the police if a person is in mental health crisis.
    The police, together with an independent mental health act Practioner are then assessing that person under detainment in a place of safety and generally referring them to private for profit NHS mental hospitals anywhere that has a bed for which up to £13,000 a week is being paid.
    Here is a report of one such NHS patient in crisis of what happened to them
    I particularly enjoyed hearing a recording recently of a call to a CrisisTeam by a patient who chose to record their own call ‘for training and monitoring purposes’ and it involved a person asking for someone to talk to as they recognised their own relapse and having tried various distraction techniques of their own, before ringing. To say my gast was entirely flabbered as the nurse sought to quickly get rid of the call and ring 999 is to dramatically understate things: there was just NOTHING there to justify ringing the police. A person wanted to talk: it was bluntly (and rudely) refused and the actual words used by the patient seemingly ignored, the phone went down and the local police received a 999 call.
    Is this now the mental support our NHS is offering and how can this help and improve mental health ?

    Reply

  9. From my experience of working for one of the leading providers of behavioural and mental health services for children, I noted that the police were welcomed by young people as being fair and kind. It was heart breaking to hear comments such as, “I would rather speak to the police because they would treat me better than you do.” A comment to a carer who was employing threats to get compliance from a learning disabled boy. The police are being overused and abused by private companies. I believe in Dorset the police started to provide training to care/children’s homes because of the tendency of undertrained staff response to “incidents.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s