Page 284 - 10. 2nd half 2018 New 26-05-21 No Table

This report is prepared at the request of London Borough of Enfield, Antisocial Behaviour
Team following directions from the Edmonton County Court to undertake an assessment on
Mr Cordell. My instructions were received in a letter dated 5 July 2018 and outlined as
below:
(1) Whether the defendant has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions in
his defence.
(2) Whether the defendant understands the terms of the injunction order dated 9
January 2018.
2. Details of current proceedings
The current proceedings relate to an interim injunction order issued against Mr Cordell, at
the Edmonton County Court on 9 January 2018. This followed numerous complaints from
neighbours about Mr Cordell’s acts of harassment and antisocial behaviour. However it has
been reported that Mr Cordell has continued to breach the order. It has been reported that
a neighbour has been assaulted, harassed, and has received threats from Mr Cordell. He has
also made threats towards certain council employees. The local authority issued
applications for committal due to Mr Cordell’s breach of the injunction, however the
applications could not be considered due to concerns about his mental capacity.
3. Sources of information
3.1 I was provided with the following information to aid in the assessment:
1. Claim form for an injunction with supporting documents
2. Order for an injunction dated 9.1.2018
3. Report of Angela Hague from the Enfield Assessment Team
4. Court order made by DJ Dias, Edmonton County Court at the hearing on 30.05.2018
and 26.6.2018.
284
1837,
3.2 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
4.1 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.
4.2 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.
4.3 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