Escaped killer 'exploited legal loophole'
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.AN ESCAPED killer who will become a free man if he stays on the run for 28 days probably identified a loophole in the law before absconding, according to the head of the hospital that treated him, writes Steve Boggan.
Dr James Earp, director of the Trent regional forensic service, said James Rudman, who stabbed his wife to death in 1991, was likely to have deliberately exploited the Mental Health Act when he absconded while walking unescorted in the grounds of the Towers Hospital secure unit in Leicester. The order imposed by Mr Justice McCollough last August will expire if he stays away from the hospital for 28 days. The Department of Health has confirmed that he will be a free man by 28 August.
Leicester police said yesterday that Rudman had contacted them to say he was 'safe and well'.
At his trial, Rudman pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility and was sent to the hospital under Section 37 of the Mental Health Act, which places an emphasis on treatment and must be renewed regularly, rather than Section 41 which ensures secure detention and has no time limit.
Dr Earp believes Rudman may have noticed or been advised of a clause in the Act that says Section 37 patients cannot be taken into custody once they have been away from hospital for 28 days.
'I think it is quite likely that he knew about the 28-day rule before absconding,' said Dr Earp. 'Patients these days have all kinds of rights read to them and they have access to all sorts of documents.'
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments