Page 1252 - 10. 2nd half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

evidence indicated that psychotropic
medication is to be commenced and the
patient's response to treatment is to be
monitored. The clinical view is that a period
of treatment is now required to address the
patient's psychotic symptoms. The clinical
view is that the patient is unlikely to engage
as an informal patient and a previous attempt
at treating the patient in the community was
unsuccessful.
3
73
As to the patient's safety, there is historical
information that Mr Cordell has attempted to
self-harm in the past. This is not a current
concern. Mr Cordell's difficulties at his
accommodation may pose a risk of eviction.
However, further clarification is required during
the period of the assessment on this point. There
is a potential risk of retaliation from others when
he is behaving aggressively towards others.
As regards the protection of others, Mr Cordell
has entrenched and longstanding views and there
have been incidents of aggression involving his
neighbours, council officials, and the police prior
to admission. He showed little capacity for self-
reflection or remorse during his evidence when
he was questioned about his telephone
interaction with Mr Appadoo. 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.
Our conclusions
6. We accept the clinical evidence as to the
nature and degree of the mental disorder. We
have no doubt that there is some element of
neighbour 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.