Lousia Ovington independent investigation report ... - NHS North East

CHAPTER 5 – INVOLVEMENT WITH POLICE AND PROBATION
106
Details
First PSR June 1998
In June 1998, in relation to the offences for which Louisa Ovington was made subject
to a Hospital Order under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act, a PSR was prepared by
Probation Officer 1, which indicated that a community penalty was inappropriate.
Discharge from Kneesworth House, January to February 2000
The probation service had no more dealings with Louisa Ovington until January 2000,
when they were involved in discussions after the discharge from Kneesworth House.
Although the five month assessment at Kneesworth House had concluded that Louisa
Ovington suffered neither from a mental illness nor a personality disorder, Consultant
11 had recommended, in relation to the offences (against the nursing staff at the Tony
White Unit) for which Louisa Ovington had been detained under Section 38 of the
Mental Health Act, a probation order with a condition of psychiatric treatment and
residence.
However Probation Officer 2 in conjunction with Durham Social Services (Team
Manager 1) did not agree that a probation order was necessary.
Second PSR February 2000
Probation Officer 2 completed a PSR for court in February 2000, when Louisa
Ovington was due back in court for sentencing in relation to the offences. She
concluded that Louisa Ovington was at low risk of reconviction although if she did
reoffend there would be a high risk to the public. She suggested that the court might,
exceptionally, consider a conditional discharge. She pointed out to the court that
there would be ongoing contact between the social worker (Social Worker 2, the
care coordinator) and Louisa Ovington and family, contact between Louisa Ovington
and the ‘nominated psychiatrist’ in the area in which she lived and contact with the
CPN. (All of which had been agreed at the care planning meeting, which took place
in January 2000 at which Probation Officer 2 was present. In the event, none of this
happened).
The court duly imposed a conditional discharge for two years.
COMMENT
On the information available to Probation Officer 2 it does not seem unreasonable
that she believed that a conditional discharge might be appropriate rather than a