File picture shows a man being escorted off the Qatar Airways aircraft by police at Manchester airport on August 5.
By Denise Marray/Gulf Times Correspondent London
Greater Manchester Police yesterday said the investigation into the incident in which a passenger triggered a serious security alert that led to a Qatar Airways flight being escorted into Manchester airport by a fighter jet on August 5 is “on-going”.
The 47-year-old British national, who triggered the bomb hoax, is now being treated for the mental problems that led to the dramatic and frightening incident. An insight into the procedures that are followed in this type of case was given to Gulf Times by Kirsty Keywood, a senior law lecturer at the University of Manchester and Director of the university’s Centre for Social Ethics and Policy.
Keywood has experience of assisting mentally unstable persons held in custody at police stations. She is familiar with the procedures at Manchester Airport where the passenger would have first been detained in a custody suite after being escorted off the plane by the police. If there were concerns about the person’s mental health, the custody sergeant would have insisted on a medical examination being undertaken before any opportunity for questioning occurred.
People who are arrested are entitled to legal representation. In cases where the person has mental health problems or a learning disability, an appropriate adult can be called to assist during the interviewing of the suspect.
Where the person is detained under the Mental Health Act the procedure would usually entail the person being admitted to a hospital rather than being interviewed and charged at a police station.
Keywood explained: “The person would have initially been made subject to an emergency application for admission for assessment. This can be made by the person’s nearest relative – for example a spouse, but most likely it would be made by an approved mental health professional. This is very often a social worker; there would also have been a doctor present to certify that the person did indeed have a mental disorder.
“It’s quite possible that after a period of assessment and an investigation into the circumstances of the alleged offence, a decision could be made that it is in the public interest for that person to be prosecuted. It doesn’t automatically follow but it can follow.”
If the passenger were to be prosecuted and found guilty, Keywood explained that the judge has it within his discretion to send the convicted individual to hospital rather than prison. This would depend on the psychiatric evaluation and the circumstances of the offence. If the judge was satisfied that person had mental health issues at the time of the offence being committed the hospital route could be the outcome.
“There can be a conviction but it doesn’t necessarily mean that the person will go to prison,” said Keywood.
There is a very rare circumstance where somebody could still end up in hospital having gone through the criminal justice system without having a conviction.
“If the person was so unwell that they didn’t really know what they were doing when they issued the threat, or they didn’t know it was legally wrong to do it because of their mental health problems then they can rely on the defence of insanity. Essentially this means that the person is found ‘not guilty’. It there were a prosecution and this was raised then the person wouldn’t have a conviction.”
She added: “Some people are so unwell by the time the case ends up in court for trial that they are not well enough to go through that process. Sometimes the court will say that the person is unfit to plead and again in this instance there would not be a conviction.”
Keywood said that it is entirely possible that a decision will be made not to prosecute the passenger.
“The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has to make a decision whether or not it is in the public interest to prosecute. If the person was profoundly mentally unwell and in hospital getting treatment there may be a sense that there is no public interest to be served in having a prosecution. If the person has previous convictions this would be taken into account when weighing the course of action,” she said.
With regard to the timeframe for decision being made Keywood explained that this would depend on a number of factors.
“If the person is very unwell it may not be appropriate for the police to interview. The first step would be getting the person stable enough to be interviewed,” she said.
Keywood said that in her experience persons suffering mental problems can be very withdrawn and reserved. Some fellow passengers interviewed by reporters upon disembarking at Manchester Airport remarked that the British national seemed ordinary and quiet.
Keywood said that some people had concerns that the Mental Health Act was being used too readily to remove people from society that are considered to be problematic. However, she stressed: “That is not my experience having seen how it works on the ground.”