Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Experiences of a mixed court liaison and diversion scheme

  • Michael Kingham (a1) and Martin Corfe (a2)
Abstract
Aims and Method

To examine the activity of the East Sussex Court Assessment and Diversion Scheme and to investigate its diagnostic formulations, recommendations and the short-term outcome of individuals referred, using a retrospective analysis of data collected over 3 years during the everyday clinical duties of scheme members.

Results

Diversion was recommended for 858 individuals from a total of 1830 referrals. Most were referred to community services, but 131 were admitted to hospital, the majority under compulsion. The number of individuals admitted to secure hospitals has increased, and delays in admitting them have lengthened. The ethnic minority population was over-represented in referrals.

Clinical Implications

Court liaison and diversion in East Sussex successfully directs defendants with mental disorders to appropriate resources, both general and specialist, in-patient and community. The expansion of in-patient secure services needs to continue to accommodate increased demand. Reasons why ethnic minorities are over-represented in referrals require further study.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Experiences of a mixed court liaison and diversion scheme
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Experiences of a mixed court liaison and diversion scheme
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Experiences of a mixed court liaison and diversion scheme
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
Hide All
Coid, J., Petruckevitch, A., Bebbington, B., et al (2002) Ethnic differences in prisoners: 2: Risk factors and psychiatric service use. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 481487.
Department of Health (1999) A National Service Framework for Mental Health. London: Stationery Office.
Eastman, N. (1998) Access Criteria for Secure Services Schedule (ACSess). London: Department of Health.
Greenhalgh, N., Wyhe, K., Rix, K., et al (1996) Pilot mental health assessment and diversion scheme for an English metropolitan petty sessional division. Medicine, Science and the Law, 36, 5258.
Home Office (1990) Provision for Mentally Disordered Offenders. Circular 66/90. London: Home Office.
Isherwood, S. & Parrott, J. (2002) Audit of transfers under the Mental Health Act from prison – the impact of organisational change. Psychiatric Bulletin, 26, 368370.
James, D. (1999) Court diversion at 10 years: can it work, does it work and has it a future? Journal of Forensic Psychiatry, 10, 507524.
James, D., Farnham, F., Moorey, H., et al (2002) Outcome of Psychiatrist Admission through the Courts. Home Office RDS Occasional Paper No. 79. London: Home Office (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/occ79outcome.pdf).
Reed, J. (1992) Review of Health and Social Services for Mentally Disordered Offenders and Others Requiring Similar Services. London: Department of Health.
Shaw, J., Creed, F., Price, J., et al (1999) Prevalence and detection of serious psychiatric disorder in defendants attending court. Lancet, 353, 10531056.
Singleton, N., Meltzer, H. & Gatward, R. (1998) Psychiatric Morbidity Among Prisoners in England and Wales (Office for National Statistics). London: Stationery Office.
White, T., Ramsay, L. & Morrison, R. (2002) Audit of the forensic psychiatry liaison service to Glasgow Sheriff Court 1994 to 1998. Medicine, Science and the Law, 42, 6470.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 0955-6036
  • EISSN: 1472-1473
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 15 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 98 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 16th July 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Experiences of a mixed court liaison and diversion scheme

  • Michael Kingham (a1) and Martin Corfe (a2)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *