HC Deb 18 November 1976 vol 919 cc743-4W
Mr. William Clark

asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will explain the circumstances surrounding the release of Michael Parrott from Netherne Hospital, Coulsdon, in 1974, in view of the fact that he strangled a young boy in August 1976; and if he will initiate an official inquiry into this case.

Mr. John

I have been asked to reply.

Michael William Parrott was admitted to Netherne Hospital, Coulsdon, in pursuance of an order under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act 1959 made at Chichester Crown Court in June 1972 following his conviction of indecent assault. The court also made an order making him subject without limit of time to the special restrictions in section 65 of the Act, the principal effect of which was to make his discharge subject to the Home Secretary's consent.

Mr. Parrott co-operated well in his treatment in Netherne and in the light of his excellent progress in hospital and during periods of leave the responsible medical officer felt able to recommend his conditional discharge. After careful consideration of this advice and all the circumstances of the case the Home Secretary's authority was given on 30th April, 1974 for the patient's conditional discharge subject to conditions requiring supervision by a hospital social worker and attendance at a psychiatric out- patient clinic as directed by the consultant pschiatrist at Netherne Hospital.

The conditions of discharge were fully complied with: he was seen at regular intervals by hospital staff and no signs of abnormal behaviour were observed. However, on 4th August, 1976, as a result of a telephone call from Mr. Parrott to his doctor at Netherne, police were called to his home, where the body of an 11 year-old-boy was found. At Lewes Crown Court on 5th November Mr. Parrott pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility and the court made an order under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act for his detention in Broad-moor Hospital, together with a further order imposing restrictions under Section 65 without limit of time.

I greatly regret the tragic circumstances of this case but I have no reason to think that they were due to any lack of care in regard to the patient's discharge and after-care, and we see no grounds for instituting an official inquiry.

Forward to