RQIA Independent Review of The McDermott Brothers' Case

7.6 Responsibilities in Relation to Supervision and Treatment Orders
(STOs)
7.6.1 On 18 June 2010, at a disposal hearing at Omagh Crown Court, the
judge determined that James Francis and Owen Roe McDermott would
each be made subject to a STO. During the court hearing the judge
asked a WHSCT social worker present in court if she was willing to act
as the supervising officer for the two brothers, and she agreed to carry
out this function. In his judgment, the judge stated that:
"I am obliged to explain to you the effect of these orders:
• The order will last for two years. I would have preferred to
make the order for longer but legislation does not allow for any
longer period.
• There will be a requirement that you shall submit during this
period to treatment by or under the direction of a medical
practitioner.
• There will be a requirement that you reside at an address
approved by your supervising officer.
• The Magistrates' Court can amend the provisions of the order,
but cannot extend it beyond two years."
Background Information on STOs
7.6.2 STOs were introduced in England in 1991. The orders could be
applied as a possible disposal option in criminal proceedings where:
• a finding was found that the accused is not guilty by reason of
insanity, or
• findings are recorded that the accused is unfit to be tried and that
he did the act or made the omission charged against him.
7.6.3 In England, STOs were replaced by supervision orders in 2004. A
Home Office circular( 24/2005) described the purpose of the new order
as being to enable support and treatment to be given to the defendant
to prevent recurrence of the problem which led to the offending. There
is no sanction for breach of a supervision order. The circular stated
that, like the supervision and treatment order, the new order is nonpunitive
and intended solely to provide a framework for treatment.
7.6.4 In Scotland, STOs were introduced through legislation in 1995. In
March 1998, the Scottish Office issued a guidance circular on STOs
(SWSG4/98). The guidance stated that the orders were intended to fill
a gap in the legislative provision for dealing in the community with
people with mental health problems who had become criminally
involved. The aim of the orders in Scotland was described as being to
offer the right combination of medical treatment, oversight and support
which would enable such persons to lead settled lives in the
community. The guidance stated that court may vary or revoke an
50