REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families

42
9. The Metropolitan Police Service does not agree that there was any procedural reason for it to
communicate with the Probation Service. The police say that Chandran Sukumaran was not in
breach of the Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order made on 12th June 2001.
Further, they point out that there is evidence that the family did not want to get Chandran into
trouble, and that involving his probation officer might have been perceived as doing just that. The
letter handed to the police contained a request that “this report has to be confidential”.
10. Caroline Godleman said that if somebody at Newham Council had been contacted, she would
have expected that person then to make contact with the Community Mental Health Team
(CMHT). She has duty staff available including a clinical medical officer (Section 12 approved),
approved social worker and a nurse.
11. Caroline Godleman was keen to emphasize to the Inquiry Panel that she considers there to be
good links between the Trust and the police. She told us the Trust works closely with the Public
Protection Unit and the Domestic Violence Unit and has regular mental health liaison meetings.
12. We accept significant effort has been put into working towards an integrated service, particularly
at a senior level. However the fact remains that, on this occasion, there was no contact with either
the Emergency Duty Team or the Domestic Violence Unit nor was there recourse to the Adult
Protection Procedures.
Comment
(1) In this case, we know that the police did not themselves forward information about the
family’s concerns on to any other agency. We do not know, in the absence of having been
able to talk to the relevant officer, the precise nature of the information he elicited from
the family about Chandran’s behaviour and illness and the nature of any judgment he
formed based on that information. Any attempt to form a view as to his opinion would
be no more than speculation. However, we take the view that information that a person
with mental health problems is not taking his medication and at times becomes violent
or threatening (all of which was in the letter handed to the police) is such that the police
should have referred the matter to the mental health services, whether by direct contact
with the CMHT or the Domestic Violence Unit, or had recourse to Adult Protection
Procedures.
(2) We believe this would have been the right course of action but, at the least, it seems to
us that the police ought to have provided relevant contact details to the family if they
were to be left to get in touch with the mental health services themselves, or ensured that
the family fully understood how to gain help for Chandran.
(3) Had the police taken appropriate steps, it is likely the CMHT would have been contacted
either directly or indirectly, and Caroline Godleman told us that there would then have
been a CMHT response. The CMHT’s response would have included talking to
Chandran’s family and a member of the team would have been sent out to do an
assessment. The CMHT would have picked up the duty to do an assessment.