Ronald Sailes (Hansard, 4 June 1980)

§ Mr. Patrick Jenkin

Ronald Sailes, who was recently convicted of the murder of a young girl last June, had for the preceding seven months been on leave from Broadmoor special hospital. Sailes, now aged 44, was admitted to Broadmoor in 1962 on an order under section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959 following a conviction for rape. The court added a restriction order, under section 65 of the Act, for a period of 15 years. During this period any move from Broadmoor was subject to the consent of the Home Secretary. When the restriction order expired in June 1977, Sailes continued to be detained in Broadmoor hospital under section 60 of the Act as an " unrestricted " patient. The orders under section 60 run in the first place for one year, and then for two years and at the end of each period the order lapses unless renewed by the responsible medical officer (RMO). His discharge from detention could, however, be ordered at any time by his RMO, by the Department or by a mental health review tribunal. Discharge in such cases is unconditional—there is no authority to impose any conditions as to residence or the acceptance of supervision by social workers or probation officers.

697W

The RMO may, however—under section 39 of the Act—grant leave to a detained patient subject to such conditions—if any—as he considers necessary in the interests of the patient or for the protection of other people. During a period of leave, the RMO may at any time revoke the leave and recall the patient to hospital, but a patient ceases to be liable to recall after six months unless meantime he has returned to the hospital or is deemed to be absent without leave.

During 1978 the hospital was considering whether Sailes needed to be detained in Broadmoor or whether he could be transferred elsewhere. In 1977 and 1978, Sailes applied to the mental health review tribunal for a discharge from detention under the Mental Health Act. In August 1977 and September 1978 the tribunal decided that he should continue to be liable to be detained under the Act. The tribunal's decision did not cover the question whether detention should continue to be in Broadmoor.

In the light of earlier consideration of the right future for Sailes, and of the tribunal's decision that the current order for detention should not be revoked, the RMO considered that Sailes should only be given trial leave, which would be subject to supervision and guidance. In consultation with the social worker concerned at Broadmoor, arrangements were agreed with a hostel in Plymouth and with the local probation service, and Sailes was granted leave. The initial period was four weeks from 20 November. The conditions were that the patient should reside at a hostel in Plymouth and should accept supervision from a probation officer. Sailes returned to Broadmoor at the end of this leave and in the light of the reports and his own assessment, the RMO authorised a further period of six months' leave, subject to the same conditions. At the end of this second period of leave, Sailes again returned to hospital on 20 May and was reassessed by the RMO in the light of all the reports. The RMO considered that, while the patient was doing well on leave and had obtained a job, he continued to need supervision and support and the RMO wished to be able to recall him to hospital should any untoward incident warrant this. The RMO therefore decided that the detention 698W order, which was due to expire on 20 June, should be renewed but that Sailes should be granted a further period of leave. The murder occurred about three weeks later.

I am satisfied that the procedures adopted in this case were in accordance with statutory provisions and with current policies on arrangements for discharge and leave from special hospitals in respect of unrestricted patients. I have also confirmed that the arrangements were in line with the conclusions of the Butler committee on mentally disordered offenders. The committee advised that the decision whether to discharge " unrestricted' 'patients was a matter which should be left to the clinical judgment of the RMO, taking into account the view of other disciplines concerned. The committee also noted with approval the practice of sending patients out on trial leave subject to appropriate conditions, although they considered this should not normally exceed six months.

I recognise, however, that despite these careful arrangements and a period of over seven months apparently successful rehabilitation, this personal tragedy occurred and I extend my deepest sympathy to Mrs. Quayle and other members of her family. I am urgently considering, with the hospital, what lessons can be learnt from this case in a field where human behaviour can never be predicted with absolute certainty. The review will cover, among other items, the arrangements for trial leave and supervision and, in particular, whether police and other agencies should always be alterted to the presence in their area of a patient on leave from a special hospital.