Page 269 - 10. 2nd half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

4. I assessed Mr Cordell on 6 July 2018, at his flat 109 Burncroft Avenue, Enfield EN3
7JQ, accompanied by two officers from the Enfield Housing Team. I can confirm that prior to
my assessment; I explained to Mr Cordell my role and the purpose of my visit. I also
explained to him that I was acting on the instructions of the Enfield Council at the directions
of the Court.
4. Assessment of Mr Cordell

• Mr Cordell spoke to us for a few minutes outside his flat and upon explaining the
purpose of the visit, he allowed us into his flat. He agreed to tie the dog outside in the
garden. The flat although disorganised with papers and folders scattered around, did not
appear overly cluttered. Mr Cordell presented as a young, slim built, mixed race male with
reasonable hygiene. We explained our roles and the purpose of our visit. Mr Cordell
informed us that he was recording our conversation.
• Mr Cordell seemed very keen and enthusiastic to talk and we had to explain the
reason of our visit several times to maintain some structure and focus. He maintained
appropriate eye contact and we managed to establish a rapport after a while. His
demeanour was polite and appropriate. There was evidence of psychomotor agitation as he
appeared generally restless and overactive. Mr Cordell described his appetite and sleep
pattern as fine. Objectively I would regard his mood as labile, rapidly fluctuating between
euthymia (normal mood) and irritability.
• Mr Cordell’s comprehension of information presented to him appeared adequate.
He was able to understand the queries presented to him. His responses however were very
elaborate and circumstantial. His speech was very pressured, difficult to interrupt and at
times frankly rambling. There was clear evidence of thought disorder with flight of ideas
(rapid shift of ideas with some superficial apparent connection). Mr Cordell struggled to
sustain his goal of thinking as he often derailed to themes of relevance to him, digressing
away from the topic of discussion. It was very difficult to obtain a direct response to the
queries posed to him and follow his thread of conversation.
4.4. Mr Cordell’s thought content was replete with various delusional beliefs of persecutory
and
grandiose nature. He spoke of an elaborate conspiracy which involves the Enfield local
authority and the metropolitan police, dating back since 2013, when he claimed that he was
arrested for putting up a gazebo in his garden which led to him being barred from visiting
2
03,
places in central London and placed on a curfew from 10 pm. Mr Cordell informed that he
followed these restrictions imposed on him for about a year and returned to Court and won
the case. Mr Cordell then went on to talk about Sally Gillcrest, the legal executive for the
metropolitan police who he alleged set him up for a million pounds and brought on an ASBO
against him, which ended with him being imposed on a nine-year curfew. Mr Cordell stated
that Sally Gillcrest in conjunction with the borough commander Jane Johnson and the
community officer started spreading rumours that he was “suffering from herpes and has
hurt a woman” which the neighbours in his block became aware of and started sending him
messages addressing him as “you; black boy. Mr Cordell implied that Sally Gillcrest colluded
with the neighbours as she had a vested interest in getting him out of this country. He
stated that the neighbours above him deliberately bang on his ceiling and have also subject
him to other forms of harassment since 2014. Mr Cordell implied that the neighbours were