Mad or Bad?

The news that Peter Sutcliffe the so-called 'Yorkshire Ripper' is applying to the High Court to have his whole life term rescinded raises many issues, not least that he was found fit to plead in the first place and that the jury did not accept that he was not guilty of murder by virtue of diminished responsibility. I think it was clear to most people that he was in fact suffering from a serious mental illness at the time of the murders, but I guess they were such appalling crimes that there would have been great public alarm had there been no trial or conviction. 

In fact Sutcliffe was diagnosed with a serious mental illness and was transferred to Special Hospital under sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act quite soon after conviction. He has remained detained at Broadmoor ever since. If a Mental Health Review Tribunal ever form the view that he has recovered sufficiently, he will be returned to prison. Although there had been an earlier recommendation for a 30 year tariff, this was subsequently made whole life, no doubt taking into account widespread public concern. It will be interesting to see what Lord Justice Judge and his fellow Justices decide, as it would appear that Sutcliffe does have legitimate grounds to have the tariff set aside because he was clearly mentally ill at the time of the offences. 

I suppose some would say it is all a bit academic because one way or the other it is most unlikely that Sutcliffe would ever be regarded as safe to release either through the MHRT or Parole Board route, but I guess in a democracy with an independent judiciary, how the State deals with such notorious cases is important for all our sakes.