REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families

38
Comment
(1) It was apparent from the evidence both of the professionals to whom we spoke and of
Chandran’s family that Chandran frequently presents as articulate, lucid and well
orientated. As it appears from that part of his report we have quoted above, Dr Röhricht
found him to be so when he interviewed him. However, the other evidence which we have
set out in detail in this Report tends to suggest strongly that he was not always as well as
he presented. Dr Röhricht’s testimony to the Inquiry Panel was that this characteristic
was not known to him when he assessed him. Had he had information which revealed a
profile of a violent nature, he would have initiated a referral to the CMHT even though
the primary purpose of his report was to assist the Court when sentencing Chandran. Dr
Rˆhricht did not pursue further information-gathering nor seek to speak with, for
example, a relative for collateral information. He did not have the pre-sentence report.
(2) Thus, an opportunity for Chandran to re-engage with mental health services was again
lost. In making this observation, we have borne in mind that there was some conflict in
Dr Röhricht’s rôle on this occasion. We consider there is confusion in the perspective
and rôle of a psychiatrist preparing reports in circumstances such as these, separate
from their catchment duties. The Trust must clarify this issue.
13. A Pre-Sentence Report (as defined in Section 3(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991) was prepared
by Andrea Hedley. This concluded that Chandran was under extreme stress at the time of his
offence because his father was unwell and that he was possibly provoked by his victim. She was
of the opinion that members of the public were not at risk from Chandran and that the risk of self
harm was low.
14. On 12th June 2001, a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order was made in respect of
this offence. This was to remain in force until 11th June 2002. Chandran was required to do 80
hours community service, which he completed on various dates between 21st August 2001 and
20th October 2001.
15. Sujita Trousdale told the Inquiry that she saw a report of Chandran’s conviction in the Newham
Recorder. She said she telephoned the police to ask whether they were aware that Chandran had
a history of psychiatric illness and was advised to speak to the Probation Service. The police have
no record of this telephone call and were unable to assist the Inquiry any further with any advice
that may have been given. It was explained to us on behalf of the police that they have Computer
Aided Despatch messages (CAD messages) but they only keep a record of 999 calls. No record
would have been kept of the call unless it necessitated some police action. Sujita Trousdale said
she did not manage to speak to Chandran’s probation officer. She said she either did not get
through to the office when she rang or, if the telephone was answered, she felt the situation was
too sensitive simply to leave a message.
16. As far as the London Probation Area of the National Probation Service is concerned, we were
told that they would expect to make contact with an individual who was expressing concern
about an offender but, in this case, this did not happen. Chandran was, however, seen on a regular
basis from June 2001 onwards by members of the Probation Service. His original probation
officer left on 7th September 2001 and his case was then transferred to Sonia Stewart.