Page 277 - 6. 2016 Diary 1st half New 26-05-21 No Table

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.
Reason for decision to make the application (including
choice of Section)
9.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.
Patient’s name
Simon Cordell
Date of assessment: 03.02.16