Writing this paper on the mentally disordered offender, I became increasingly aware of both the importance and priority of the subject, together with the paucity of information which the probation service possessed and the neglect experienced; a disastrous combination. I became aware in my probation area of how some staff possessed both the knowledge base and the skills to make an important contribution to this area of work and yet the organization itself had not really thought through the consequences of, or the need for, a coherent system of management to deal with the problem. I learned of good local teamworking relationships which now exist between psychiatry, probation and the courts and which exist because of the inspiration of working operational staff. But I wondered why management had so rarely taken an initiative in this area when for some time I have been most certainly aware, as a chief probation officer, of the major problems that the mentally disordered offender presents to the criminal justice system.

Working in Central London one cannot help but notice an increase in mad ‘Bedlam type’ behaviour in the streets; to note from the service incident book that disturbed mentally ill offenders are increasingly common in our offices; to reflect on the fact that in our courts, sentencers constantly seek our help with the mentally ill defendant. Yet resources are generally lacking with the result that such defendants are more likely to end up in custody certainly at the remand stage. This was brought home to me during an experiment the Inner London Probation Service conducted in Wormwood Scrubs which looked at reducing the use of remands in custody. If you were a woman, a black defendant, or mentally disordered, you were in trouble in terms of the facilities that could be organized on your behalf to persuade a court to give you bail. If you were all three you were a walking disaster area.

Why has the probation service generally speaking neglected its responsibilities with the mentally disordered offender? I think there are two major reasons. The first is that the Mental Health Act 1983 placed on the social services responsibility for dealing with the mentally ill. Almost it seems, with a sigh of relief, the probation service withdrew much of its interest and commitment.