Tuesday, June 05, 2007

If this guy ...

is Swiss Re's Head of Life, what's their chief mortality investigator like ?


Voyager said...

I am surprised Swiss Re did not order its executives to keep stumm on this matter.

We have gone in 24 hours from a £500.000 Director of Swiss Re to a man sectioned under the Mental Health Act. I find this extraordinary - one day he is a Director of a major Reinsurance Company and that night he treats his daughter like a rag doll destroying her brain and her life.......so the next morning the Police decide he is in need of sectioning.

This is peculiar. Has Swiss Re perhaps checked other executives to see if they are mentally ill ? Should the mother sue Swiss Re for the psychotic killer they sent to her home that evening ?

Surely he should be sent to a normal prison on remand so he can meet people who do not think he treated his daughter properly ?

Is he conveniently sectioned so he can avoid meeting normal people in prison ?

1983 Mental Health Act
Section 35 and Section 36 are similar in their powers to Section 2 and Section 3 (see above) respectively, but are used for persons awaiting trial for a serious crime and provide courts with an alternative to remanding a mentally disordered person in prison. The order for Section 35 can be made by a Crown Court or Magistrates' Court, whilst Section 36 can be enacted only by a Crown Court. Courts can enact either of these sections on the medical recommendation of one approved doctor. Both these sections are now rarely used in practice.

Section 37 is a treatment order, similar in many regards to Section 3 (see above), and is fairly frequently used. It is applied to persons recently convicted of a serious crime, which is punishable by imprisonment. Thus it represents an alternative to a mentally disordered person being punished by imprisonment or otherwise. It is enacted by a Crown Court or Magistrates' Court on the recommendation of two approved doctors, both of whom must agree on the subcategory of mental disorder the person is suffering from. However, the court is able to exercise discretion in this regard and can impose a prison sentence despite medical recommendations for Section 37.

A person detained under Section 37 can appeal to the Mental Health Review Tribunal after a period of six months; if he or she is no longer suffering from symptoms of mental disorder, the person can be discharged by the Tribunal, even if there is a strong possibility that the person might relapse and re-offend. Furthermore, a person on Section 37 alone, who may have been convicted of a serious and violent crime, can be discharged in the community at any time by one doctor, his or her Responsible Medical Officer.

For these reasons, persons who either are deemed by the court to pose a particularly high risk to other people if released, have a pronounced history of dangerous behaviour, or have committed a particularly serious offence, usually have Section 41 used in conjunction with Section 37. Section 41 imposes “restrictions” upon the terms of Section 37. In summary, this means that the Home Office and, ultimately, the Home Secretary, rather than the RMO, decides when the person can leave hospital, either temporarily (“leave”) or permanently (“discharge”). Indeed, most persons are ultimately given a "conditional discharge", which sets a statutory framework for psychiatric follow-up in the community upon release and provides for recall into hospital if, for instance, a person disengages from mental health services.

Only a Crown Court can impose Section 41, but a judge can do so without a doctor's recommendation. Although persons on Section 41 can appeal against their detention to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, their cases are heard by a Special Tribunal, chaired by a High Court judge. Section 41 can be imposed with a time limit, although this provision is rarely used.

JuliaM said...

"Is he conveniently sectioned so he can avoid meeting normal people in prison ?"

Good grief! No, I expect he's sectioned (pretty inconveniently to all concerned...) because he's mentally ll and a danger to himself and others.

If he recovers, he will have to live with the realisation of what he has done while ill. Who would wish that on anyone?

"Should the mother sue Swiss Re ...."

In the US, probably some ambulance-chasing vermin would already be at her door, but hopefully we haven't sunk that low here (yet)

Voyager said...

In the US, probably some ambulance-chasing vermin would already be at her door

Aye but in this country she was take out an insurance policy with a law firm to cover the fees......but she won't because she works gor GE as he did before Swiss Re bought his unit.

CCTV said...

because he's mentally ll and a danger to himself and others.

How do you go from a state of rationality and responsibility to one of mental illness in such a short period ie. overnight ?

David B. Wildgoose said...

From rationality to mental illness overnight after celebrating a promotion at work. I'm obviously not the only one wondering what kind of "celebrations" were indulged/smoked/snorted?

Anonymous said...

Sadly, the kid didn't make it.

Observer said...

Anonymous said...

Sadly, the kid didn't make it.

I think in view of what her brain had apparently gone through that is the best outcome.

I do wish Swiss Re would gag its employees some of the reported comments make them sound goofy in view of what has taken place.