Violent neighbour with MH issues

elsien

It's completely incorrect to say if the person is not of sound mind nothing can be done. Capacity is time and decision specific, regardless of diagnosis, so if the alleged perpetrator knows what he is doing and is committing an offence then the police do have the option to charge. In my line of work I've met a lot of people in hospital due to their MH who are being prosecuted for criminal acts.

If the person is considered to potentially be a risk to themselves or others and needs to be in hospital for assessment or treatment, both the MH team (and is certain circumstances) the police can request an assessment under the Mental Health Act.
The fact they haven't done so would appear to indicate that regardless of the other resident's fears, he's not considered to be at that point.
There is also the consideration (just to play devil's advocate because it does happen) that the alleged offender is being unjustly blamed/victimised by other residents who just want him out because of intolerance and are magnifying what is actually happening.

Which is why the HA have to be careful in how they manage things.

Have they offered any mediation at all? If one party says yes and the other no, at least one person has shown willing.
Does your friend have any services himself, and what are they doing to support him? If he doesn't, is he eligible for any which might help?

I do still think the legal/complaints route is the way to get things moving. And calls to 101 if people are being threatened. The police may well not appear to be doing anything but there is then a log of incidents if needed. There's some unpleasant or antisocial people out there who don't have MH issues, and it can be a long drawn out process needing a lot of evidence to get anything done. This situation may be similar with the MH being a bit of a red herring.

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

You don’t think paragraph 2.9, sub-paragraphs c and d suffice in the event of a violent assault on a vulnerable person who has reason to fear a repeat of the offence?

No. you are misunderstanding the process of arrest.


C: To prevent injury. If there is no immediate threat of injury, cannot be used. Assuming the person was away from the scene of the assault, then it would no apply. - otherwise every 'violent' offence would be automatic arrest, which it isn't.


To protect a child or vulnerable person. Only again if there is a direct threat, e.g. they share the same living space. Otherwise again, every assault on a child or vulnerable person would be automatic arrest, and it isn't.


E - is actually the most likely - Intimidate or threaten a witness. But the police has more information than either the OP or us here

ska_lover wrote: »

Comms69 wrote: »

Because, like I said, an arrest - ANY arrest - requires necessity under Code G.


......................................

What does that mean?

ska_lover

Does anyone actually know how we go about obtaining an injunction/non molestation order? As in WHAT kind of lawyer would we approach, to get the ball rolling. Is it a ''Family'' Solicitor?

We have made an appointment not even sure it is with the correct persons (as in type of lawyer) - that all being my main question really

Sorry I know it is irritating to any following a post that I delete stuff as we go along, but it is vital to do this at the moment.

Please can folk assist with the main question - above in italics. That is all I am asking for help with please

Without ever having dealings with solicitors ourselves, other than a house purchase / making a will, have no idea

ska_lover

@comms, it was me trying to delete something and making a hash of it

elsien

Is there a law centre where you live?
That would be a good starting point. You might also want to look on the legal aid page of the Law society website to check eligibility.
Or look on Gov.uk for the Civil Legal Advice page which will take you to an eligibility checker.

What reason have the police given for not going down the harassment route?

Comms69

ska_lover wrote: »

Does anyone actually know how we go about obtaining an injunction/non molestation order? As in WHAT kind of lawyer would we approach, to get the ball rolling. Is it a ''Family'' Solicitor?

We have made an appointment not even sure it is with the correct persons (as in type of lawyer) - that all being my main question really

Sorry I know it is irritating to any following a post that I delete stuff as we go along, but it is vital to do this at the moment.

Please can folk assist with the main question - above in italics. That is all I am asking for help with please

Without ever having dealings with solicitors ourselves, other than a house purchase / making a will, have no idea

You cant get a non-mol. Those are only available to partners/spouses/family members.


A criminal solicitor would be the first port of call. They may suggest a family law specialist, as they will likely have experience of dealing with civil (but not non-mol) injunctions.

onwards&upwards

Comms69 wrote: »

No. you are misunderstanding the process of arrest.


C: To prevent injury. If there is no immediate threat of injury, cannot be used. Assuming the person was away from the scene of the assault, then it would no apply. - otherwise every 'violent' offence would be automatic arrest, which it isn't.


To protect a child or vulnerable person. Only again if there is a direct threat, e.g. they share the same living space. Otherwise again, every assault on a child or vulnerable person would be automatic arrest, and it isn't.

Are you a police officer or a solicitor I presume?

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

No. you are misunderstanding the process of arrest.


C: To prevent injury. If there is no immediate threat of injury, cannot be used. Assuming the person was away from the scene of the assault, then it would no apply. - otherwise every 'violent' offence would be automatic arrest, which it isn't.


To protect a child or vulnerable person. Only again if there is a direct threat, e.g. they share the same living space. Otherwise again, every assault on a child or vulnerable person would be automatic arrest, and it isn't.


E - is actually the most likely - Intimidate or threaten a witness. But the police has more information than either the OP or us here






Are you a police officer or a solicitor I presume?

Neither, but I don't have to be to understand the law. - For what it's worth I have qualifications in law and practical experience on both sides of both civil and criminal law.


If you have an issue with my argument, I would suggest you make the point, not question my qualifications.

onwards&upwards

Comms69 wrote: »

Neither, but I don't have to be to understand the law. - For what it's worth I have qualifications in law and practical experience on both sides of both civil and criminal law.


If you have an issue with my argument, I would suggest you make the point, not question my qualifications.

Just wanted to check, as you are presenting your opinion as expert/fact.

Now the OP can better decide what weight to give it, i’m sure it will be even more helpful if you tell him what your qualifications in the law are.

Comms69

onwards&upwards wrote: »

Just wanted to check, as you are presenting your opinion as expert/fact.

Now the OP can better decide what weight to give it, i’m sure it will be even more helpful if you tell him what your qualifications in the law are.

There is no 'fact' or 'opinion' to be given. I'm explaining how the law works.


Many people don't know the necessary criteria for an arrest. They simply think "someone has done something bad and the police will arrest them".


Like I said, if you have an issue with what I'm saying, state it. Questioning my qualification is irrelevant. No-one needs a qualification in law to understand it. Just a lot of time and a modicum of intelligence.