Friends and neighbours of Paul Doyle remain incredulous at the reality of his behaviour and from my experience, I think some professionals will be thinking the same.
I’ve never met the man, but I cannot and never did for one moment doubt the murderous intent he acted out on that day in Liverpool. Given my experience of assessing and working with men and women who have behaved in similar ways to Paul, it comes as no surprise to me that in his history there is evidence of previous concerning violence, some of it extreme. This known and documented history had seemingly faded from awareness. To the wider world he was no longer defined as the once violent person he was. The impression was that he was ‘sound’, ‘friendly’, ‘kind’, ‘helpful’, a’ diamond’. Whilst Paul showed to the world around him this impression, it was just that, an ‘impression’. It was absolutely not the whole picture.
My clinical froensic and criminal justice training, much like Paul’s violence, happened many decades ago and it’s has never left me, much like Paul’s violence. It is deeply grounded in my psyche and has informed all the encounters I have had with men like Paul. It was a training that held as a basic principle, a tenant of truth, an all-encompassing wisdom, that early histories of violence need to be considered when assessing risk and dangerousness, no matter how long ago they may have occurred. The passing of time cannot be and should not be used to interpret that the risk of repetition is over.
The risk of repeating past violence is increased of course if the initial violence has never been worked with, its causal factors explored and, its often many meanings made conscious. In the absence of consciousness history has revealed to us, times over, will repeat. Paul, the most recent example among many indeed.
Highlighting the risk of a violent presenting past is not a popular thing to do and especially so in the context of the current police, prison and probation services. Frighteningly, in these services risk has become a dirty word. Risk means more resources are needed. Risk means that skilled practitioners are called for, and risk means accountability. All of these things are in very short supply indeed. To be the messenger of risk, to be the one who names it and speaks out about it makes you a very unpopular person indeed. Times over in the last few years I found my assessment of risk was being called into question, often by managers who had never actually worked with highly dangerous individuals, who relied on manualised risk assessment and were more concerned about there spreadsheets than the reality of protecting the public. On occasions and along with other policing colleagues who shared my view, we were even barred from case discussions, not allowed into meetings. The presenting past, they did not want to know about.
I can understand why neighbours and friends of Paul are shocked to discover the full picture of the dangerous man he has always been, they knew no other. For professionals in the criminal justice system to minimise factors that contribute to risk and choose to ignore them, there is no excuse. Those who refused to take into account my, always thorough, risk assessments often referred to me as being ‘risk adverse’ an insulting term when used to minimise and disregard my sound clinical knowledge, judgement and experience.
But less of me …. important to return to this latest lesson and reminder of risk. It’s not only Paul’s history that is cause for concern but the comments he first made when still at the scene of his crimes also reveal much. “I’ve ruined the lives of my family”. In the face of the hundreds of lives he had just ruined his words communicate an immense callousness, self-concern and narcissism. Like his past his words also reveal much about him and his thinking. This too would not escape my assessment.
The passing of time did not make any difference to the risk held within Paul. It was, and always has been, a matter or time.
Br Stephen Morris FCC
