Page 268 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

and a learning disability. There was no evidence of distraction, confusion or that he was
responding to internal stimuli.
36
It is my view that Mr Cordell’s detention was not in the interests of his health as I did not
identify evidence of mental disorder during the visit. I did not believe that Mr Cordell’s
detention was necessary for his safety, Mr Cordell denied experiencing any suicidal
ideation and could I not identify other risks to safety apart from possible substance misuse
which could not be used as the basis of detention without clear evidence of a mental
disorder associated with the substance misuse issues. I also did not think that the
threshold for detention on the basis of safety was met, he was having conflict with
neighbour this conflict did not appear to be driven by any mental disorder.
5. Consultation with Nearest Relative and process of identifying the Nearest Relative

I identified Mr Cordell’s Nearest Relative as his mother Lorraine Cordell. Mr Cordell
lives alone and is single. As far as I could ascertain he did not have any children and was
not in relationship. His father was the older of his parents but when I phoned his mother
on
03.02.16
she informed me that he was in regular contact with Mr Cordell and did his shopping for
him. I therefore formed the view that she provided care and was the Nearest Relative.
I phoned Lorraine at around 09:30hrs on
09.02.16
and she advised that in her view use of a warrant and the Mental Health Act assessment
were unnecessary as he would give professionals access if he had received an
appointment letter. She said that he had a court case in February but would not elaborate
on this. Lorraine said that she thought that the involvement of mental health services was
unnecessary as Mr Cordell was not in her view experiencing any mental health
difficulties and had not experienced any mental health difficulties for a number of
months. I was surprised that Lorraine stated that she did not think that Mr Cordell as the
recent referral to mental health services had been triggered by a referral that she had
made.
6. Consultation with Assessing Doctors Both assessing Doctors declined to make
medical recommendations and were in agreement that there was no clear evidence of any
mental disorder during the assessing.
7. Views of others consulted
Prior to the assessment the police present advised me that were aware of conflict between
Mr Cordell and his neighbour. They advised that the soundproofing between the two
properties was poor. The police officers advised me that they were aware that on one
occasion Mr Cordell had threatened to strangle his neighbour.
8. Mental Capacity Act 2005
No Capacity Act issues identified during the assessment.
9. Reason for decision to make the application (including choice of Section)
Given that Mr Cordell’s diagnosis and treatment plan were not clear at the time of the
assessment the assessment was for possible detention on section 2. It was my view that
Mr Cordell did not meet the statutory criteria for detention. It was not clear that he was
suffering from a mental disorder of a nature because at the time of the assessment it was
unclear if whether or not he had a mental disorder. He did not meet the criteria for degree
as there was no clear evidence that he was experiencing symptoms of mental disorder.
10. If not admitted to hospital, outline immediate plans for alternative to admission and
how those plans will be co-ordinated.