It Is Wrong To Bite Ears off Mentally Ill People: Landmark Legal Decision!

FB had an ear bitten off in the course of a dispute over a card game. The accused HR admitted there had been a "silly quarrel" in the course of a card game but denied biting FB's ear off. There were others present and one of them might have done it. He simply had not noticed who. To his great credit "HR made it clear that he was not suggesting that FB's ear might have been bitten off by a passer by". He accepted that it must have happened inside.

HR accompanied FB (with others) to hospital. FB said:

"...before they left he saw HR take from his mouth the piece of FB's ear which had been bitten off but then put it back in his mouth. On the way to hospital HR threatened violence to FB's family and himself if he were to report the matter to the police. The others joined in telling him to keep his mouth shut. At the hospital two police officers were called. FB initially told them untruthfully that he had lost his ear in an incident on Camden High Street, because one of the others was still present with him and he was scared about the threats which had been made".

With HR's creditable admission that this was not a passer by attack this seems to me a credible account and easily capable of belief by a jury.

However, the Director of Public Prosecutions through counsel instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service decided on the day of trial to offer no evidence against the accused. Two barristers concurred in this decision. It was reached as a result of a report by a Dr C that said that "FB had a history of psychotic illness in which he at times held paranoid beliefs about certain people and also suffered auditory and visual hallucinations".

This was an atrocious decision. The barristers have been given anonymity too, however.

It was also the case that FB had never held paranoid beliefs about HR, held no hostility towards him and had insight into his condition.

The barristers misread Dr C's report.

There was a case to be put before a jury.

Luckily, the application for judicial review of the barristers' decision succeeded. Lord Justice Toulson concluded that "the decision to terminate the prosecution was unlawful".

Unluckily, "because it was immediately followed by the prosecution offering no evidence, it was also irreversible".

So, HR will never face trial and FB will receive £8,000 in "just satisfaction" from the DPP.

Is that just satisfaction? A trial would have been but then I am not a criminal lawyer. If FB was not to have that then my non criminal lawyer opinion is that £8,000 is paltry recompense. I doubt, however, whether HR is worth powder and shot in a civil action. It might be nice if FB's legal advisers would launch one anyway. Just to show the bastard.

One last quotation from the detective constable involved when she told FB of the decision not to prosecute:

"The claimant was upset; I could see tears in his eyes. He kept on asking me if he could leave - he didn't want to sit and discuss the matter further. I asked him if he was ok to travel and he left the court building".