Page 208 - 11. 2019 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:
• Whether the defendant has the mental capacity to litigate and give instructions in his
defence.
• Whether the defendant understands the terms of the injunction order dated 9 January
2018.
• 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.
• Sources of information
o I was provided with the following information to aid in the assessment:
o Claim form for an injunction with supporting documents
o Order for an injunction dated 9.1.2018
o Report of Angela Hague from the Enfield Assessment Team
o Court order made by DJ Dias, Edmonton County Court at the hearing on
30.05.2018 and 26.6.2018.
208
128,
o 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.
• Assessment of Mr Cordell
o 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.
o 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.
o 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