|
|
ELDERLY ITALIAN LADY IMPRISONED BY BRITISH AUTHORITIES A report by Dr. Rita Pal about NHS-Exposed's efforts to free Margherita . Freedom to live and die where you choose is a fundamental human right . Whatever the crimes of your nearest and dearest should not mean that an elderly lady should be denied her freedom. We have made efforts to release Mrs Caminita who is an elderly Italian lady held by Bedfordshire Social Services. Click here to read our letter to them. These were the authorities who once said that Mr Stephen Hill was well treated ! Mrs Caminita is a victim of authorities. We have had evidence that she wishes to return home to Italy. This is written evidence (in police statements) as well as taped evidence which states she wishes to go home to Palermo in Italy. These wishes have been denied by the British authorities. She is held under the Mental Health Act and considered as suffering from dementia. I dispute this fact given that there is no evidence e.g. CT scans to verify this fact. In addition, it is alleged that Mrs Caminita's son Mr Errante committed Grievous Bodily Harm. We have observed the records and there has been no forensic report. The investigation and evidence is circumstantial. Although we have asked the Bedfordshire Police to reconsider their investigation, they have failed to do so. We are in the process of obtaining adequate reports ourselves. Mr Errante cannot therefore be considered guilty by the mere virtue that the Bedfordshire Police have shown confidential evidence to his own Italian Embassy implying that he is infact guilty. As we all know, in criminal cases, evidence should not be shown to others before a trial. The Italian Embassy has thus refused to represent Mr Errante. Mr Errante has always professed his innocence and has campaigned to free his mother. It is not for us to judge but merely to point out that a person who hates his mother thus causing grievous bodily harm would not campaign so vociferously. He has set up his own website at www.margherita-caminita.com . Although we do not support all his views, Mr Errante is nevertheless entitled to his freedom of expression. The Italian Embassy has refused to represent Mrs Caminita. Whatever the crimes of her son, it is the responsibility of the Embassy and the British Authorities to ensure that Mrs Caminita is provided with her freedom and adequate protection at a place where she wishes to live. We have all the records, we have all the evidence and we have attempted to obtain some support for Mrs Caminita. 1) We wished to go an see her . Under the Mental Health Act and Human Rights Act 1998, she is allowed visitors. This was denied. 2) We asked to be able to send her a birthday present on her Birthday. We also asked to visit her to present this to her. We were told that this would not be possible. We have this on taped evidence. Bedfordshire Social Services know exactly which conversations were taped. In order to ensure the present was delivered, we had to send it to the Bedfordshire Police who confirmed delivery by email. 3) We contacted the Italian Embassy who were unhelpful, obstructive and refused to assist their own citizen or even listen to reason. To leave an elderly person imprisoned under the Mental Health Act would be far easier than to even attempt to reach some form of compromise. The Italians have the same facilities as us in Italy yet, Mrs Caminita is forced to remain is the UK. She does not speak the language and is isolated. It is possible to transfer Mrs Caminita to Italy and place her in a safe care home. This has been denied. 4) We cannot make representations in court on Mrs Caminita's behalf because guardianship has been taken by Bedfordshire Social Services. Applications are not accepted from third parties. 5) We contacted MIND who refused to visit her (see letters from MIND) 6) We contacted Help the Aged (see letter from Help the Aged ) and Age Concern (see letter from Age Concern) who either thanked us for their letter or referred us to MIND. 7) In conclusion, the so called charities who are supposed to take care of the elderly have left the issue in our court . We have had no intervention or assistance. 8) The worst of the best . THE MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION. Yes, we presented the evidence and they explained that because social services had guardianship - we should go back to them !! (see letter from the MENTAL HEALTH COMMISSION) How about the word " useless" at protecting fundamental human rights of an elderly person. We have their letters. 9) We have made efforts at instigating a new evidence for Mr Errante. These are currently ongoing. In the meantime, Mr Errante is a fugitive in Italy. He has made representations recently in Italy. Again, we have been left with no alternatives than to publicise these events. We have the evidence and we have completed our intervention in the United Kingdom. The authorities deserve this exposure due to the fact that they have forced an elderly lady who in my opinion does not have dementia to be imprisoned in a strange country with no access to voluntary organisations and no assistance from charities . The only time she will be free is when she is dead . That is the truth if we continue as we are. BRITISH AND ITALIAN AUTHORITIES - CARING FOR THE ELDERLY . This is our evidence for breach of fundamental human rights of Mrs Caminita . It is something you or I have but Mrs Caminita is denied. We all sit and wait for someone else to take action - this is the lethargy of the charities and the organisations who are an embarrassment to the civil liberties of any human being. If anyone can assist in visiting her or anything else , please contact us directly at enquiries@nhs-exposed.com. Message from Dr R Pal Margerita - I am sorry I could not free you this
time but we are still trying for you and we will never give up . Letter to Bedfordshire Social Services NHS EXPOSED 30th November 2000 Pat Mitchell Dear Mr Mitchell, RE: Mrs Caminita. Italian Citizen Sectioned under the Mental Health Act 1998 . Many thanks for your letter dated 2nd November 2000, which I only received today. I have noted your comments. a) You are correct in that I am a stranger to Mrs Caminita but it is incorrect for you to assume I have " no connection with her ". I understand she is an Italian citizen. The Italian Embassy is therefore ultimately responsible for her welfare. As I made it quite clear to you in my previous correspondence, Professor Aloj who has been instructed by the Ambassador Mr Amaduzzi himself thought it appropriate that I made an initial visit to ascertain what Mrs Caminita's wishes were. I understand from your letter that you have forbidden me to do this and stated Article 8 as your defence. Unfortunately, the reasonable man or woman in the street is not prevented from having the opportunity to state whether he or she wishes to meet a " Stranger ". You will note the reasonable person under the Mental Health Act 1983 is permitted to have visitors if she so wishes. I note that you have not visited her, yet have answered on her behalf. Article 8 therefore cannot be enforced by yourselves given that the patient has a right to Freedom of Expression Article 10, which you have in effect denied her. Article 8 states 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. I wonder whether the Social Services has actually ensured that they have respected family life in the second section as quite obviously you have denied her access to her family (naturally excluding Mr Errante ) when one could have easily negotiated similar accommodation facilities i.e. preventing Mr Errante from visiting in her homeland ( Italy) . Does that not lead us to believe that you yourselves have breached Article 8 itself preventing any family life whatsoever. b) You will also note that in the statement of Mr Richard Gilbert on the 24th September 1998. He states that Mrs Carminita 's own words were " She enjoyed the day but did not wish to stay. She wished to go home - to Palermo ". This has been repeated on the taped evidence I have heard and also by your own social workers in my last conversation. It is clear from the evidence that Mrs Caminita wishes to go to Italy. I realise the dangers involved and in addition it would not be to fanciful to suggest a section in her own country and guardianship by the Italian Authorities preventing Mr Errante from seeing her until he has stood for trial. c) I understand your concerns about my motives. I do not trust nor am not in league with Mr Errante. My sole concern is that Mrs Carminita wishes to go home; I would like to see this achieved whilst also maintaining her safety. I understand that the decision to section her was taken for her own safety. I understand your reservations but I am working with the Italian Embassy who will hopefully be writing to your shortly. My aim is to simply obtain a care plan in Italy that is identical to the one here. I find it rather strange that an Italian national has been kept in the National Health Service when it is the responsibility of the Italian government to ensure her rights are preserved and that she is protected from her son who may or may not be guilty but I appreciate that at this point her safety is paramount. d) My intention has been to discover what her wishes are. That is the reason I wished to see her. In addition, I wanted to ensure she had everything she required. e) I have attempted to persuade Mr Errante to return for trial in this country. He has refused so far. f) With respect to her Section under the MHA. I am aware of her CT Scan result which does not show her to have Alzeimers or Multi infact Dementia hence she is not progressively worsening in mental state. I gather she possibly has senile dementia, which is part of the ageing process. In my experience, simply having short-term memory loss does not warrant a section. Nevertheless, she has a right to Article 5 i.e. her Liberty and Security. By the obstructive and unco-operative behaviour at
present you have a patient under the MHA because of her son not because she is
insane and has behavioural problems. Professor Aloj and I have heard her speak
recently and she seems perfectly able to make her own decisions and wishes .
This is, as you know a breach of h) It would also be prudent for you to note that the MHA guidelines specified by MAZE (Stated by the highest authority on the subject i.e. the Maudsley Hospital) states (Section 7) " The powers given to the guardian are not capable of enforcement, but reply on co-operation of the patient ". Hence your automatic refusal to my visit is against this section, as you have not obtained consent from the patient. " Guardianship does not provide legal authority to detain a person physically in accommodation ". As you know the person has a right to appeal to the Mental Health Tribunal under Guardianship. As you have not provided her with this information then I feel this lady will not know her rights. In addition I will refer you to the Code of Practice provided by the Department of Health which you have not adhered to. a) The factors to be taken into account at
assessment. b) 26.1 All detained patients are entitled to maintain contact with and be visited by whomsoever they wish…. There are two grounds for excluding a visitor and I do not fall into either. c) 26.4 Every effort must be made to assist the patient, where appropriate, to make contact with relatives, friends and supporters. d) A Care Plan is desired. e) 14.11 The statutory information should be made available to them either in Braille or on tape. I suggest you provide her information on her rights in a manner, which she understands as a matter of urgency. In summary, my intention is to work with the social services and the Italian Embassy to ensure this lady is taken home to Palermo to secure facilities. In addition, I wish to endeavour to bring Mr Errante to this country. We can either work together to ensure this lady's last days are what she requires or you may choose to become defensive and obstructive and we continue this in court. Mr Errante will therefore remain on the run. I will leave the decision in your capable hands. As you know a solicitor can easily be obtained for her via the courts due to her predicament. I look forward to hearing from you and one hopes you will endeavour to work with me as opposed to being a cross purposes given that Mrs Caminita is the one whose welfare we should both be working towards. Kind Regards Dr Rita Pal Cc Professor Aloj, Italian Embassy in London
|