Abstract
A group of 57 men referred by the procurator fiscal* for psychiatric assessment were compared with a control group of 57 men seen at a psychiatric outpatient clinic. The groups were found to be similar when compared by age and marital status and within each group there was a wide range of psychiatric problems, several of which were recorded with similar frequency in both groups. Psychotic illness was uncommon in both groups.
In general, the only clear distinguishing feature between individuals in the 2 groups was the source of referral and the implication of this; namely that all fiscal cases had been charged with a criminal offence. The response to treatment amongst those in the control group who were seen on more than one occasion was encouraging, while only one fiscal referral was seen again by the doctor to whom he was initially referred.
It is concluded that amongst court referrals there are treatment needs which are not being met as fully as they might be and the reasons for this, together with some possible solutions, are discussed
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.