Page 1546 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

team. His mother thought that he has reacted to stress in the past and that he has been
working very hard on his project.
5. The clinical team were not unanimous in their view. Dr Mills suggested that there had
been a possibility that Dr Cranitch, RC, had considered discharging him prior to the tribunal
but on balance had decided not to. Dr Mills, having spoken to the RC, was of the view that
detention was warranted given the degree of the disorder which is in their view a first episode
psychosis. Mr Ahmed, a staff nurse on the ward, was of the view that it was the nature of the
disorder that warranted detention. The care co-ordinator, Mr Adama, was of the view that the
section should be discharged as Mr Cordell had been adamant that he would engage with
services. Dr Mills and Mr Ahmed were concerned about his insight and the risk of non-
compliance and deterioration.
Tribunal's conclusions with reasons
6. The tribunal is satisfied that Mr Cordell is suffering from a mental disorder. This is
consistent with the signs and symptoms he has displayed which include a preoccupation with
a business plan which is so ambitious and far reaching that it can be described as grandiose
thinking. He has been working unceasingly on these plans and is in all likelihood suffering
from a stress reaction. He has very limited insight. Over a period of two years Mr Cordell has
expressed beliefs about police and neighbours which may have some factual basis but in all
likelihood are overvalued.
7. The tribunal is not satisfied that the nature of the disorder warrants detention. Mr Cordell
has never accepted treatment. We were unable to find that the signs or symptoms have
responded to treatment or that they had deteriorated in the absence of treatment. Any
problems that he has had with neighbours and his beliefs about persecution at the hands of the
police appear to be longstanding. Despite these beliefs he has lived in the same place for 11
years. He has convictions but these do not relate to violence and are in connection with
driving offences as a youth and with organising an illegal rave. He has been assessed before
and not been found to be detainable.
8. The tribunal is not satisfied that the degree of the disorder warrants detention. He was
thought disordered on admission, but these symptoms have settled. He poses no management
problems. He is compliant with treatment and he gets on well with staff and patients. He was
angry with his mother, but she is visiting and supports his discharge. He may not accept that
he has a mental disorder but states that he is willing to engage with the assessment. He has
stated that if the procedures are carried out properly, he will abide by them. We accepted his
evidence.
9. The tribunal's decision on the first limb of the act meant that we were not bound to
consider the risks other than as to how they related to the current degree of the disorder. We
are satisfied that it is at least likely that he will continue to comply with treatment either as a
voluntary patient or in the community. In any event he has never accepted treatment in the
past and until recently has found not to be detainable. It was not clear that there had been a
deterioration. He is on bail, but the police are not due to interview him until October 2016.
We had his forensic history. We were not informed that he has any history of physical
violence
3
104
13. We did not use our discretionary grounds for discharge.
Judge Susan Rees Date 26-8-16
Notice
A person seeking permission to appeal must make a written application to the tribunal for
permission to appeal. An application for permission must:
10. identify the decision of the tribunal to which it relates.