Criminal Negligence

The mental health misdiagnosis that I initially received in 2010 is extremely unlikely to have been accidental, and under the circumstances, it amounts to criminal negligence.

A misdiagnosis can be criminal:

• When medical negligence becomes criminal

The psychological effects of this misdiagnosis have profoundly affected my behaviour, and must not be ignored. They have been particularly damaging and exceedingly humiliating.

In this section I present:

• Motives For Misdiagnosis
• Criminal Implications Of Deliberate Misdiagnosis
• Evidence Of Misdiagnosis

Medical records relating to my misdiagnosis are full of extremely damaging, inaccurate, and misleading statements.

I’ve been scapegoated, and my reputation wrongly destroyed. The misdiagnosis has been used to suppress me and this has damaged my life beyond all recognition. 

Motives For Misdiagnosis

Motives arose for the authorities to:

• Cover-up years of negligence that contributed to my psychiatric injury
• Cover-up effects of torture that led directly to my misdiagnosis.
  • The torture was likely psychiatric coercion so motives arose for psychiatrists to cover-up it’s appalling consequences.
  • Police had repeatedly ignored my appeals for help with the torture.
• Hinder me making a claim for damages for negligence that led to my psychiatric injury, and for leaving me driven suicidal by torture (at the hands of a community mental health team)

Motives are fundamental to assessing plausibility of guilt, thus my initial misdiagnosis in 2010 appears to have been a very deliberate attempt to cover-up what had happened.

• Establishing a psychiatric history is a fundamental part of the diagnostic process – had this been done, it would have invalidated their diagnosis (Evidence of negligence)
• They ignored the traumatising effects of years of abuse and violent crime I reported to them. (Evidence of negligence)
• Probability of all four Consultant Psychiatrists to misdiagnose me, all accidentally making the same mistake = 0.0015% (< 10% considered: ‘Very unlikely to occur’) (Not accidental, thus evidence of criminal intent)

Criminal Implications Of Deliberate Misdiagnosis

A deliberate misdiagnosis under the circumstances would be criminal.

• The ‘Reasonable person standard’ together with the very low probability of four consultant psychiatrists making the same mistake indicates Criminal Negligence.
• It Assisted Offenders to avoid prosecution by protecting those who caused my psychiatric injury that amounted to ABH/GBH, and also those who tortured me.
• My psychiatric injury and it's symptoms were evidence of a crime, and the misdiagnosis struck directly at that evidence, masking criminal behaviour that caused it, and misleading the response it. The misdiagnosis was a fabrication of evidence subsequently relied on by Judges. It thus Perverted the Course of Justice.
• The misdiagnosis inflicted considerable additional psychological harm that may also amount to ABH/GBH given the horrific consequences.
• It may constitute Fraud - by abuse of position given consequential losses such as the resulting loss of earning potential, and loss of compensation etc.
  • Consultant psychiatrists have the potential to act maliciously against the (financial) interests of their patients by misdiagnosis.
    • They therefore occupy a position that satisfies Fraud Act 2006, Section 4(1.a)
    • The misdiagnosis was “identifiable morally dubious conduct to which the test of dishonesty may be applied” (See: Page 7, Archbold Review - Issue 10 December 18 2017)
    • The act of misdiagnosis resulted in loss of compensation for PTSD injury, and effects of torture.
    • Failure to act to ensure crime that had damaged my life was investigated also contributed to a loss of compensation. (Note: A 'failure to act' satisfies Actus Reus)
  • There were motives to suppress me by damaging my earning potential.
    • My engineering job required me to be of sound mind – the misdiagnosis damaged my reputation and employability.
    • My GP Dr Lyle told me in 2010 that I needed to get used to doing a low paid job.
      • The medical profession clearly knew how financially damaging the misdiagnosis was.
      • Medical records contain letters written by Dr Lyle in 2010 referring to conversations he’d had with me.
  • The misdiagnosis foreseeably fueled outrage and cooperation problems resulting in an enormous loss of earnings, (and other considerable consequential damage).

The misdiagnosis has also resulted in a significant Defamation of Character.

Evidence Of Misdiagnosis

• Mandatory W.H.O. ICD-10 diagnostic criteria can’t be met for the diagnosis I was given (Note: Medical records show that ICD-10 was used to make my diagnosis):
  • The "General Criteria" for personality disorder, (F60), must be met for all specific types of personality disorder. The use of the word 'must' indicates a mandatory condition without which the diagnosis can't succeed.
    • World Health Organisation ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria
  • Personality disorders require persistent evidence of the disorder to be present from childhood/adolescence onwards (See: F60-G4).
  • I was 35 when I was first misdiagnosed. A personality disorder would have been detected long before this. (Clearly there are also other criteria that can't be met)
  • My mental health had been repeatedly vetted prior to employment in a number of secure environments since age 16 – there were no problems with my personality.
  • My career, numerous work reports, letters, and photos spanning my career provide extensive and strong evidence of misdiagnosis. (See excerpts from these below) 

• The existence of personality disorders is highly controversial amongst specialists according to mental health advocates at Mind. (Further evidence of misdiagnosis)
  • See: Personality disorder - why is diagnosis controversial? - Mind

• I was left subjected to years of abuse and violent crime that at times made me fear greatly for my safety.
  • It should have been obvious the deviation in my behaviour was due to trauma, and not a personality disorder stemming from childhood.
  • The circumstances that led to my entanglement with mental health are further evidence of misdiagnosis

A selection of excerpts from the many work reports and letters I have:

These reports span many years between my adolescence and mid 30's.

• They provide evidence that my personal qualities were consistently good throughout that time
• That mandatory diagnostic criteria requiring persistent evidence of a personality disorder stemming from childhood/adolescence can't be met.
• Evidence that I was misdiagnosed by four different consultant psychiatrists. (Evidence of deliberate misdiagnosis, and criminal negligence)