REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families
REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families REPORT OF AN INDEPENDENT INQUIRY ... - Hundred Families
(4) The police and the Probation Service hold different views as to whether the probation service should also have been informed of the family’s concern about Chandran’s current state of mental health. We do not think this Inquiry has heard sufficient evidence to decide whether one view is correct or not. Still, it is possible that situations may arise where the effective delivery of care to mentally disordered offenders and the safety of the public may require communication between the police and the probation service even in the absence of, for example, a breach of a Community Punishment and Rehabilitation Order and we are of the opinion that this is an issue which could usefully be reviewed. (5) As will be apparent to readers of this Report, a particularly striking feature of this Inquiry has been the inability of Chandran’s family members, who were articulate and aware of those periods when he was unwell, to gain access to help for him. If they found it difficult to know where to go to get help for him, we could not help but wonder about the difficulties other people might encounter. This is an issue which, in our view, has to be addressed by all of the agencies involved in this case and with which we deal in greater detail later in this report. 13. On 1st November 2001, the sister of Sujita Trousdale and Biju Ramkrishnan made a 999 call at 21.27 hours. The police records show that the caller said her “cousin Chandran aged 31 with mental problems is at his father’s house and is refusing to let inft [informant] in. Father is 80 years old Sukumaran. Male threatened to harm his father and inft blvds [believes] that he will do so ... For info. male has been violet (sic) to people tin (sic) the past and has recently kicked a colleague at work in the head.” 14. Two police officers, PC Robert Larkey and PC Alan Mitchell went round to the property in response to that call. Chandran opened the door to the police officers and Narayanan Sukumaran was standing behind him. PC Mitchell spoke to Narayanan Sukumaran and asked him whether he was all right, to which he replied “Yes, yes”. PC Mitchell formed the impression that Narayanan Sukumaran understood sufficient English to talk to him and asked him out of earshot of Chandran whether he wanted the police to get his son to leave the property. Narayanan Sukumaran said he did not. He asked whether his son was in trouble and said he did not want him to leave. He said Chandran had not threatened him. 15. PC Mitchell then joined PC Larkey who was talking to Chandran. In a statement, PC Mitchell described Chandran’s behaviour as “odd” and said that “he appeared to be very hyper and was unable to relax. However, he was lucid and speaking clearly, putting his point across without apparent difficulty”. The police officers asked Chandran whether he was known to the police and he told them he had assaulted a work colleague. PC Mitchell made some enquiries which confirmed that information was correct and that Chandran was not wanted or missing from East Ham Memorial Hospital. PC Larkey asked Chandran if he had ever been in hospital and Chandran said he “went in a mental hospital in Bournemouth for a few days and left”. PC Larkey asked him whether he needed any tablets and he said that he did not but sometimes took walks in the country to clear his head.. 43
44 16. The police officers discussed the situation and concluded that they had no reason to require Chandran to leave the property. They then left, advising Chandran and his father that they could call the police if they required help in the future. Comment (1) Chandran’s probation officer was not informed that the police had been called to the property although the police were aware of his conviction and one of the police officers (although not a trained mental health professional) thought his behaviour was “odd”. Again, the police say that there was no reason to communicate with the probation service and no breach of any guidance or protocol in not doing so. As we have observed above, we consider that the issue of communication about mentally disordered offenders between the two services should be reviewed. (2) No link was made between this request for help via the 999 call and the family’s request for help at East Ham Police Station only six days earlier. 17. On 2nd November 2001, the same two police officers were contacted when they were starting their tour of duty at 9pm and asked to identify Chandran. Narayanan Sukumaran had been found dead and there was information to suggest that Chandran had killed his father. They went to Forest Gate Police Station where they identified Chandran as the man they had spoken to on the previous evening. 18. Narayanan Sukumaran’s body had been found at about 8pm by some of his family members. He was covered with a sheet. He had sustained extensive external and internal injuries which were said in the pathology report to be “consistent with having been caused by repeated blows onto face such as punches, stamps from a shod foot and/or stroke or kicks”. The cause of death was given as cardiac failure, ischaemic heart disease and severe facial injuries. 19. Chandran told us he was not “feeling right” that day and he got into an argument with his father. He described what happened to the Inquiry Panel: “I started seeing faces and my father was laughing. Everything I said he was laughing at me - I thought maybe the devil was playing tricks with my mind. I kept coming forward and I hit him. I was frightened and he went down and hit the television. I saw him standing and I was still seeing faces and I put the bed sheet over him. I thought maybe the devil was my father. He was standing there strong and then I walked out of the house. I thought the devil was in there and I could run away. “ 20. When he was told of Narayanan Sukumaran’s death, Biju Ramkrishnan went to Chandran’s flat. He found Chandran there and called the police. He said that Chandran “wasn’t in the right state of mind” and, when the police did not arrive immediately, he decided to drive him to the police station. 21. Chandran was arrested by PC Lomas at 21.40 hours on 2nd November 2001 at Forest Gate Police Station on suspicion of having murdered his father. The police learned that he had mental health problems and a Forensic Medical Examiner (“FME”), Selladurai Shanmugadasan, examined him at about 21.30 hours on 2nd November 2001. At that time, Dr Shanmugadasan found no evidence of hallucination and decided that he was fit to be detained and interviewed in the presence of an Appropriate Adult.
- Page 1 and 2: Distributed by North East London St
- Page 3 and 4: 2 Panel Membership Miss Clare Price
- Page 5 and 6: 4 9. On 1st November 2001, Chandran
- Page 7 and 8: 6 First of all, I wish to thank all
- Page 9 and 10: 8 Introduction - The Independent In
- Page 11 and 12: 10 1.2.1. His past history 1.2.2. H
- Page 13 and 14: 12 Procedure 10. As appears above,
- Page 15 and 16: 14 Chapter 1 - Chandran Sukumaran
- Page 17 and 18: 16 12. Shortly after the move from
- Page 19 and 20: 18 I suggest that he is prescribed
- Page 21 and 22: 20 10. The differential diagnoses f
- Page 23 and 24: 22 “On examination Mr. Sukumaran
- Page 25 and 26: 24 25. Dr Feldman had no further in
- Page 27 and 28: 26 Chapter 3 - Chandran Sukumaran
- Page 29 and 30: 28 Chapter 4 - Admission to St. Mar
- Page 31 and 32: 30 10. On 26th February 1997, a Dis
- Page 33 and 34: 32 14. On 25th June 1997, we believ
- Page 35 and 36: 34 There may, of course, be occasio
- Page 37 and 38: 36 Chapter 5 - Relevant Events in 2
- Page 39 and 40: 38 Comment (1) It was apparent from
- Page 41 and 42: 40 Chapter 6 - The Metropolitan Pol
- Page 43: 42 9. The Metropolitan Police Servi
- Page 47 and 48: 46 Chapter 7 - Discussion 1. It was
- Page 49 and 50: 48 6.10 The damage he caused to his
- Page 51 and 52: 50 13. We believe that the informat
- Page 53 and 54: 52 26. We recognise the truth in th
- Page 55 and 56: 54 5. The criteria below upon which
(4) The police and the Probation Service hold different views as to whether the probation<br />
service should also have been informed of the family’s concern about Chandran’s<br />
current state of mental health. We do not think this Inquiry has heard sufficient<br />
evidence to decide whether one view is correct or not. Still, it is possible that situations<br />
may arise where the effective delivery of care to mentally disordered offenders and the<br />
safety of the public may require communication between the police and the probation<br />
service even in the absence of, for example, a breach of a Community Punishment and<br />
Rehabilitation Order and we are of the opinion that this is an issue which could usefully<br />
be reviewed.<br />
(5) As will be apparent to readers of this Report, a particularly striking feature of this<br />
Inquiry has been the inability of Chandran’s family members, who were articulate and<br />
aware of those periods when he was unwell, to gain access to help for him. If they found<br />
it difficult to know where to go to get help for him, we could not help but wonder about<br />
the difficulties other people might encounter. This is an issue which, in our view, has to<br />
be addressed by all of the agencies involved in this case and with which we deal in<br />
greater detail later in this report.<br />
13. On 1st November 2001, the sister of Sujita Trousdale and Biju Ramkrishnan made a 999 call at<br />
21.27 hours. The police records show that the caller said her<br />
“cousin Chandran aged 31 with mental problems is at his father’s house and is refusing to let<br />
inft [informant] in. Father is 80 years old Sukumaran. Male threatened to harm his father and<br />
inft blvds [believes] that he will do so ... For info. male has been violet (sic) to people tin (sic)<br />
the past and has recently kicked a colleague at work in the head.”<br />
14. Two police officers, PC Robert Larkey and PC Alan Mitchell went round to the property in<br />
response to that call. Chandran opened the door to the police officers and Narayanan Sukumaran<br />
was standing behind him. PC Mitchell spoke to Narayanan Sukumaran and asked him whether<br />
he was all right, to which he replied “Yes, yes”. PC Mitchell formed the impression that<br />
Narayanan Sukumaran understood sufficient English to talk to him and asked him out of earshot<br />
of Chandran whether he wanted the police to get his son to leave the property. Narayanan<br />
Sukumaran said he did not. He asked whether his son was in trouble and said he did not want<br />
him to leave. He said Chandran had not threatened him.<br />
15. PC Mitchell then joined PC Larkey who was talking to Chandran. In a statement, PC Mitchell<br />
described Chandran’s behaviour as “odd” and said that “he appeared to be very hyper and was<br />
unable to relax. However, he was lucid and speaking clearly, putting his point across without<br />
apparent difficulty”. The police officers asked Chandran whether he was known to the police and<br />
he told them he had assaulted a work colleague. PC Mitchell made some enquiries which<br />
confirmed that information was correct and that Chandran was not wanted or missing from East<br />
Ham Memorial Hospital. PC Larkey asked Chandran if he had ever been in hospital and<br />
Chandran said he “went in a mental hospital in Bournemouth for a few days and left”. PC Larkey<br />
asked him whether he needed any tablets and he said that he did not but sometimes took walks<br />
in the country to clear his head..<br />
43
Change language