Page 1242 - 10. 2nd half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

As to the patient's health, the professional evidence indicated that: --
6) There is a potential risk of retaliation from others when he is behaving aggressively
towards others.
Reply:

As regards the protection of others: --
7) Mr. Cordell has entrenched and longstanding views and there have been incidents of
aggression involving his: --

7.1) Neighbours.
Reply:

7.2) Council officials, and.
Reply:

7.3) The police prior to admission.
Reply:

As regards the protection of others: --
8) He showed little capacity for self- reflection or remorse during his evidence when he
was questioned about his telephone interaction with Mr. Appadoo.
Reply:

As regards the protection of others: --
9) We note that the allegations of physical and verbal altercations with his neighbours were
relied upon to obtain an order for an injunction as recently as the 9.1.2018 which was later
discharged in July 2018 due to the patient's lack of capacity to understand the conditions of
the injunction due to his psychotic illness.
Reply:

8 6. Our conclusions
We accept the clinical evidence as to the nature arid degree of the mental
disorder. We have no doubt that there is some element of neighbour’s dispute;
however, Mr. Cordell’s response to such triggers appear to be rooted in a
mental disorder which will need to be assessed during this admission. We also
accept that the detention is justified in the interests of the patient's health,
safety and the protection of others for the reasons set out above.

1) We accept the clinical evidence as to the nature arid degree of the mental disorder.
Reply:

2) We have no doubt that there is some element of neighbour’s dispute;
Reply:

3) However, Mr. Cordell’s response to such triggers appear to be rooted in a mental
disorder which will need to be assessed during this admission.