Mark from Brighton
Mark, in his 20s, was already serving a 10-year sentence for attempted murder, having attacked a friend previously following an argument, beating and stabbing him. Mark always insisted that he could not control his violence and had severe mental health problems, but, despite assessments before and throughout his sentence, no mental illness was ever diagnosed. He had been known to suffer severe depression as a teenager.
During his time in prison he violently attacked other inmates on at least two separate occasions, superficially cutting the throat of one; Mark was sectioned under the Mental Health Act on both occasions. However, for reasons which are not known to us, Mark was not charged with either attack, and neither man pursued charges. It is thought that in at least one of the two cases Mark was acting in self-defence, but he claimed to have no recollection of his mindset on either occasion.
Throughout his sentence, in counselling sessions, numerous occasions are recorded of Mark pleading for a psychiatric diagnosis, but he was never recognized as a permanent mental health patient.
Therefore, halfway into the 8th year of his sentence, it was necessary for Mark to be released on a non-parole basis; because of the violence he was not granted parole before this time. Mark begged not to be released, but was told that he must under Home Office regulations. He claimed he was not rehabilitated and was "absolutely certain" that he would hurt somebody if released. He asked to be detained under the Mental Heath Act for the remainder of his sentence, but was refused. Mark was told that he would be forcibly removed from the prison if he did not leave voluntarily.
On the day of his release to a hostel, his first evening outside, he assaulted a man unknown to him, stabbing him at least six times in the chest and stomach. He was immediately arrested and recalled to prison to complete his 10-year sentence. The stranger he attacked survived; we know nothing more about the outcome of that case or about the victim. We know that Mark was charged, but we do not know with what offence.
We want you to concentrate on Mark in this case, particularly the circumstances surrounding his release, and of course the outcome. Home Office regulations state that parole is eligible halfway into a sentence of more than 4 years. Three-quarters of the way into the sentence the prisoner must be released to ensure an adequate period of community rehabilitation (see SENTENCING POLICY page). Cases such as this, in our opinion, are surprisingly common, as is the outcome. The media vehemently attack the Home Office and Probation services in such cases, but what do you think? Which agency do you think bears the most responsibility and why? Perhaps you would defend the agencies in this case, and entirely blame Mark for his arguably premeditated behaviour. Do you think (based on the, admittedly, scant information in this report) that mental health services were right or wrong not to diagnose Mark.
This is clearly a multi-layered and thought-provoking case, and we want you to consider all perspectives. Most importantly, we want you to address two points: what were your initial thoughts on reading it, and could more have been done to protect the stranger Mark attacked after his release?
Please let us know what you think by clicking on the "VERDICT" link to the right.
Readers' Responses