Bronson 3
Page 23
At that earlier time (i.e. in 1991), it was perfectly clear to me from my examination of Charles Bronson that he was not in the same category of dangerousness as the majority of other longterm prisoners under my care – he knew what he was doing, he was generally in better control, and the pressure of his internalised aggression was far weaker than the 60 murderers including 6 serial killers I got to know really well at that time. The fact is that he has never committed murder, his offences have generally been against property, and his harm to his victims has fallen a long way short of that all too commonly observed among the 100 or so dangerous violent prisoners I was regularly called upon to treat in Parkhurst Prison. In view of this relatively small destructive element in Charles Bronson, taken in conjunction with the point made about his emotional maturation in the next paragraph, the prognosis from a psychiatric viewpoint is decidedly bright; though I must add that the psychological damage he inflicted was perhaps greater than he was aware of.
I discussed our first session of July 1991 with Charles this week, and he now agrees that at that time his emotional response and indeed his dependence upon his mother was excessive. He tells me that since his recent marriage, he has become very much more stable, and more mature. He describes the death of his father, which still moves him today. It is my professional opinion that he has indeed become emotionally mature, and that therefore his risk of impulsive behaviour is now diminished to negligible proportions. He also suffers from bereavement for his father, for which treatment is clearly indicated.
From a psychiatric point of view, it is ironic that his conditions of imprisonment are now of a level of security, and indeed of social deprivation, which is far in excess of his level of risk – in terms of expense alone, this would merit re-evaluation. In terms of the damage it does to Charles Bronson’s mental health, there is perhaps a case to be made for his punishment being excessive – the phrase ‘cruel and unusual’ comes to mind. For the last eight months he has been confined to a single cell – he has 60 minutes’ exercise outside the cell in 24 hours. He is denied all social contact with his fellow prisoners. His visits are ‘closed’ which means that he remains behind a gate of iron bars, to which a net of one-inch squares has been secured. He is allowed no physical contact with his wife nor his stepdaughter – apart from touching finger ends, poked through these one-inch gaps in the wire netting. As a result of this excessive restriction, he can no longer face the humiliation of visits from his wife and stepdaughter, which therefore no longer take place – a further increment to his retribution.
My own psychiatric examination had to be conducted in a noisy corridor, with contact restricted as above. I regularly video my interviews with the object of showing the court, especially the jury, the inner workings of the mind. Permission to video this interview though applied for, was denied, or at least a decision deferred until after the critical time had passed – could it be that the Prison Service was as anxious as the trial judge to keep from the wider scrutiny the precise details of the conditions under which he is incarcerated.
From a psychiatric viewpoint, his current conditions of imprisonment are highly relevant. They remind me of the sensory deprivation experiments carried out in the mid-twentieth century, when exploring the origins of schizophrenia. Sensory and indeed social deprivation of this order are well recognised as highly destabilising to mental health – man after all is intrinsically a social animal. Clearly, his fears of precisely this type of treatment underlay the terror he experienced when the ‘3 or 4 years’ he was promised at Hull were explicitly dashed.
As an earnest example of the maturation mentioned, and of the reduced level of risk he now poses, he was pleased to give me a copy of a Gist Report to CSC Committee. This, he tells me, is one of a series of monthly reports detailing his conduct during the preceding month. For eight months, he has had clean reports – no infringement of the prison rules has been recorded. Though this confirms my prognosis of his future behaviour, it throws into an odd contrast the notion that the cell he now occupies is generally used as a ‘punishment cell’ – though the infringement for which he is now suffering is unclear. It could be that he is being denied the maxim of being innocent until proven guilty – here he is being treated as guilty before the event. Should not the principles of natural justice be more obviously applied?
MY OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is my considered psychiatric opinion that Charles Bronson suffers today from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The psychiatric evidence in support of this is overwhelming in my view. It is also supported by Dr Kennedy’s report dated 24 January 2000, page 16, para 1.3. The detailed reasons for this are given above and below. Nor is there any doubt in my mind that the terror he had of the dangers posed to him by the proposed abrupt departure from Hull was the trigger for this disease.
From a psychiatric viewpoint therefore, it seems entirely reasonable to me that he was acting under duress of circumstances, or of necessity, such that he committed one crime to avoid a worse – namely his own immolation.
In so far as my psychiatric opinion is relevant, it is also abundantly clear to me that the three criteria suggested above apply in full. Namely – (a) the act was done only to avoid what appeared to him to be an inevitable or irreparable evil, (b) that no more was done than was reasonably necessary for that purpose, and (c) that the evil inflicted by it was not disproportionate to the evil avoided. The psychiatric evidence available to me at this time fully supports this contention.
My recommendation is that his current conditions of imprisonment be reviewed as a matter of urgency, not only with regard to the application of natural justice as mentioned, but more significantly with regard to the damaging effect such wanton social isolation is well known to inflict, even on the strongest constitution. It would seem to me that the Prison Service is failing in its duty of rehabilitation by imposing such drastic conditions of social isolation, especially in view of the fact that their own data show that he has not infringed any rules in the last eight months.
I would also need to add that he does require Bereavement Therapy to help him cope with the recent death of his father – it is entirely unreasonable, in my view, to deny him the expert assistance he requests and requires in this regard.
MY BACKGROUND
I have been medically qualified since 1961, and a Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists since 1973. I am on the GMC speciality register for psychiatry. I have extensive training in psychotherapy, notably having obtained a Diploma in Psychotherapy, Neurology and Psychiatry from the Psychiatric Institute in New York in 1965. I have wide experience of psychotherapy, especially in the forensic area, both in Parkhurst Prison, and latterly in Ashworth Special Hospital, and also for 18 months in the trauma unit at Charing Cross Hospital. I have an MA in Psychology from the University of Cambridge, and a PhD from Manchester University. I have been approved under Section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act 1983, this approval now extends to 2003.
For almost five years, from July 1991 to January 1996, I worked as Consultant Psychiatrist in Parkhurst Prison, initially attached exclusively to the CRC Special Unit, C Wing, which accommodated those long-term prisoners too violent and too ill-disciplined to be easily contained in the system in general, or in Broadmoor. The majority were convicted of murder; of the remainder, there was a liberal sample of rapists, arsonists, child molesters, and other sexually deviant behaviours, all of whom I was able to get to know very closely, and whose underlying pathology I had wide experience of. Latterly, I was asked to see and to treat others in the prison in general and in particular those who persisted in harming themselves for whom I developed a degree of expertise, which was by and large successful.
I worked with Dr Felicity de Zulueta at her express invitation at Charing Cross Hospital Trauma Centre for 18 months when she was Director there.
I was one of 14 national experts invited to submit evidence, twice, and indeed to testify before the Fallon Inquiry into the Personality Di
sorder Unit at Ashworth Hospital, which reported last year – a transcript of my evidence and testimony is available on the internet.
I was recently Head of Therapy in the Personality Disorder Unit at Ashworth Special Hospital, Maghull, Liverpool. I had been specifically invited to work there; indeed, the post of Head of Therapy was especially created for me, to accommodate my experience and expertise. I have now provided Court Reports for a wide variety of cases, and approach this one with a background of 40 years’ clinical experience.
EXPERT DECLARATION
1. I understand that my primary duty in writing reports and in giving evidence is to the Court or other Statutory Bodies, rather than to the party who engaged me.
2. I have endeavoured in my reports and in my opinions to be accurate and to have covered all relevant issues concerning the matters stated which I have been asked to address.
3. I have endeavoured to include in my report those matters which I have knowledge of or of which I have been made aware, that might adversely affect the validity of my opinion.
4. I have indicated the sources of all information I have used.
5. I have not, without forming an independent view, included or excluded anything which has been suggested to me by others (in particular by my instructing solicitors).
6. I will notify those instructing me immediately and confirm in writing if for any reason my existing report requires any correction or qualification.
7. I understand that:
(a) my report, subject to any corrections before affirming as to its correctness, will form the evidence to be given under affirmation
(b) I may be cross-examined on my report by a cross-examiner assisted by an expert
(c) I am likely to be the subject of public adverse criticism by the judge if the Court concludes that I have not taken reasonable care in trying to meet the standards set out above
8. I confirm that I have not entered into any agreement where the amount or payment of my fees is in any way dependent on the outcome of the case.
QUESTIONS I AM ASKED TO ADDRESS IN THIS REPORT
To establish:
1. Whether he is in fact suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).
2. Whether his condition would have led him to take the hostage.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO ME AT THE TIME OF WRITING THIS REPORT
The following are available to me at this time:
Record of PACE interview of Mr Charles Branson dated 27 April 1999. Handwritten verbatim notes of prison officers who witnessed the incident at HMP Hull.
PSYCHIATRIC REPORTS:
Psychiatric report at Broadmoor hospital dated 11 July 1996.
Psychiatric report from Park Lane Hospital dated 12 June 1984.
Psychiatric report from Bethlam Royal Hospital dated 18 January 1984.
Psychiatric report from Dagenam Royal Hospital dated 18 January 1985.
Report from Dr Tenant dated 15 April 1985.
Psychiatric report from Dr H Kennedy dated January 2000.
Psychiatric report from Dr Chandra Ghosh dated 24 September 1999.
Summing up and verdict dated 17 February 2000 at Luton Crown Court before his Honour Judge Moss.
Witness statements – Schedule attached.
Psychological Report by Hilary Laurie, Principal Psychologist, Durham Prison, dated January 2002.
Probation Report by Rosemary Kirkby, Probation Officer, Luton, dated 11 February 2002
BACKGROUND AND PERSONALITY
Asked how he saw his parents as a child, he [Bronson] said simply of his father that ‘I loved him’. He was strict, being a Navy man, one whom he looked up to. He says he misses him a lot, following his recent death. He also sometimes thinks he has not died; indeed, he went so far as to admit he does not want him to have died. These jumbled emotions are typical of bereavement, and require expert Bereavement Therapy to correct, since untreated they will inflict unnecessary pain.
Of his mother, whom he describes initially as a ‘lovely lady’, he now sees that he had been too emotionally dependent upon her. Two events have contributed to his gaining insight into his family configuration – firstly, he sees things much more clearly since his father died, and again he has had renewed confidence and esteem following his marriage.
PRESENT PSYCHIATRIC SITUATION
On examination, Charles is entirely straightforward. Conditions of this examination were less than ideal, as noted above – indeed, I am tempted to describe them as disgraceful. But given these constraints, Charles Bronson related extremely well – there was good eye contact, and no sign of major mental disease such as psychosis or schizophrenia. Indeed, given all the psychological ill treatment he has received, and continues to receive, he has shown astonishing mental stability to cope with it all.
He struggles for the word to describe his earlier offending behaviour; I suggest ‘impulsive’ and he grasps it with alacrity. He also displays to me, and agrees when I put it to him, that he is now vastly more emotionally mature than when I examined him in July 1991 – an event he remembers in remarkable detail.
I took it upon myself to address the question of his possible emotional reaction should his mother die – since from my first consultation with him, I was well aware that this was liable to precipitate a major emotional upheaval in him. Indeed, I had endeavoured to warn the prison authorities of this likelihood, though to little apparent avail.
In the event, I was delighted by his response – not only did he agree that this had been a serious potential flash-point in the past – it would have ‘smashed me’ he said. But he went on to say ‘I have grown up. I’ve matured,’ which I could see from his reaction that indeed he had.
He told me that he had known he had had problems – indeed, his abundant letters to me over the last decade show this – and that he needed to sort it out. He says that earlier he wouldn’t accept it, but now he is no longer fighting the system – he no longer has a need to.
POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER – PTSD
Since the presence of this condition in this individual is the major point of psychiatric interest in the case, I include here the official description of it from the definitive psychiatric text copied directly from the DSM–IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 4th Edn. 1994). I have underlined the sections which I consider applicable to this case, and comment in more detail on them below.
DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA FOR 309.81 POST-TRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER
A. The person has been exposed to a traumatic event in which both of the following were present:
1 the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others.
2. the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror. Note: In children, this may be expressed instead by disorganized or agitated behaviour.
B. The traumatic event is persistently re-experienced in one (or more) of the following ways:
1. recurrent and intrusive distressing recollections of the event, including images, thoughts or perceptions. Note: In young children, repetitive play may occur in which themes or aspects of the trauma are expressed.
2. recurrent distressing dreams of the event. Note: In children, there may he frightening dreams without recognisable content.
3. acting or feeling as if the traumatic event were recurring (includes a sense of reliving the experience, illusions, hallucinations, and dissociative flashback episodes, including those that occur on awakening or when intoxicated). Note: In young children, traumaspecific re-enactment may occur.
4. intense psychological distress at exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.
5. physiological reactivity on exposure to internal or external cues that symbolise or resemble an aspect of the traumatic event.
C. Persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbin
g of general responsiveness (not present before the trauma), as indicated by three (or more) of the following:
1. efforts to avoid thoughts, feelings, or conversations associated with the trauma
2. efforts to avoid activities, places or people that arouse recollections of the trauma
3. inability to recall an important aspect of the trauma
4. markedly diminished interest or participation in significant activities
5. feeling of detachment or estrangement from others
6. restricted range of affect (e.g., unable to have loving feelings)
7. sense of a foreshortened future (e.g., does not expect to have a career, marriage, children, or a normal life-span)
D. Persistent symptoms of increased arousal (riot present before the trauma), as indicated by two (or more) of the following:
1. difficulty falling or staying asleep
2. irritability or outbursts of anger
3. difficulty concentrating
4. hypervigilance
5. exaggerated startle response
E. Duration of the disturbance (symptoms in Criteria B, C and D) is more than 1 month.
F. The disturbance causes clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.