Examination of Repeated Custodial Remands to Brixton (England) Prison for Medical Reports

• NCJ Number: 72066
• Author(s): J Marshall
• Date Published: 1976
• Length: 22 pages
• Sale Source: National Institute of Justice/
• Language: English
• Country: United Kingdom

Annotation

A pilot study was conducted at England's Brixton Prison regarding remand prisoners, the preparation of their medical reports, and the identification of medical remand 'repeaters,' defendants remanded for medical reports more than once a year.

Abstract

A search of Brixton reception records between July 1973 and June 1974 turned up 259 individuals (or 594 reports) remanded for medical reports during those 12 months who had been received on remand for medical reports at least once more within 12 months of their initial receptions. These 259 are 11 percent of the individuals annually remanded to Brixton for medical reports, and represent 24 percent of the approximately 2,750 medical reports requested each year by the courts. In view of findings that only 20 percent of all the reports recommended that the courts dispose of a case by medical order and that 7 out of every 10 repeaters never received such a recommendation on any occasion, a majority of the repeaters' custodial medical remands may have been unnecessary. Courts might be encouraged to rely on medical reports prepared within the 12 months proceding the current remand by the fact that the probability of a medical recommendation appears to be associated in most cases with the outcome of the previous report. A medical recommendation is likely in only 10 percent of the cases where the previous report made no recommendation, but in 50 percent of the cases where the previous report did offer medical recommendation. Unfortunately in only 18 cases of the entire sample had the remanding court expressly indicated awareness of previous reports. The findings thus suggest that a service should be provided to courts wishing to know of the existence and contents of any previous medical report, so that these courts can refrain from custodial remands to obtain new reports, and so that diagnoses can be made with more consistency. An appendix discusses the diagnoses and dispositions of the cases, seven footnotes are provided, and tables illustrate the findings.