Broadmoor had a set procedure for discharging patients. Release was only possible through the machinations of either a ‘responsible medical officer’ or through a Mental Health Review Tribunal.324 Both responsible medical officer and patient were commonly, but not always, interviewed about the prospect. Patients whose interviews failed to go as planned could feel very depressed and aggrieved, but for most it was the first step towards leaving Broadmoor.
There was a significant spike in the numbers of patients released or transferred from Broadmoor during the 1960s and 1970s who went on to commit serious crimes. Between 1961 and 1980, 21 former patients were found guilty of homicide. One of the most notorious cases prior to that of Graham Young was Essex-born Alan Reeve, who at the age of 15 was convicted of the manslaughter of another youth, Roger Jackson, and admitted to Broadmoor with psychopathic disorder. Three years prior to the killing, Reeve had attempted to shoot his own father and was, in fact, on the run from a borstal when he encountered Jackson. Reeve beat and stabbed the boy, then hid his body in Colchester’s Castle Park before sending three postcards to Jackson’s parents bearing the synonym ‘DOA’ (dead on arrival). His treatment in Broadmoor consisted largely of psychotherapy, but he continued to show a deep interest in the occult, drawing Satanic symbols on books and announcing that he had dedicated his life to Satan. He made failed escape attempts in November and December 1965; ten months later, having ingested a number of drinamyl tablets, he managed to scale the roof of Broadmoor. In his possession were another 150 drinamyl tablets and 25 sleeping pills. He was brought down, but in 1967 confessed to the strangulation of another patient, Billy Doyle. Although the two men were known to have argued beforehand, Doyle’s death was viewed by the authorities as assisted suicide, with doctors confirming that Doyle had spoken of his wish to die. Reeve retracted his confession, and another patient was recorded as having been responsible for Doyle’s death. Reeve participated in a rooftop protest at Broadmoor in the 1970s and a hunger strike. He applied for parole and was recommended for release, but the Home Office vetoed the move. In 1981, Reeve escaped from Broadmoor; his girlfriend was waiting for him in a car and together they fled abroad. They settled in Amsterdam, where Reeve attempted to steal alcohol from a shop in order to celebrate a year of freedom; the gunfight that ensued saw him wound two police officers and take a woman hostage. One of the police officers died as a result of his wounds and Reeve was subsequently sentenced to 15 years in a Dutch prison. During his time behind bars, he qualified as a lawyer and was released in 1992, having served ten years. Part of the condition of his parole was that he should report regularly to a local police station, but he failed to do so and vanished abroad again. Sometime later it emerged that he was living in the Republic of Ireland, where he worked for the Women’s Poetry Circle. Extradited back to the UK, Reeve was re-admitted to Broadmoor, where in fact he had never actually been discharged. Five months later, he was released and has lived in the Republic of Ireland ever since.
The Home Office raised no strong objections to Udwin’s recommendation that Graham should be released. Steps were gradually implemented for his return to society.
On 16 June 1970, Graham wrote gleefully to his sister from Ward 1 of Kent House, Broadmoor:
My dearest Win,
Many apologies from your wicked, neglectful brother, for failing to write to you for such an unconscionably long time. I really haven’t had anything remotely interesting to write to you, and besides, when I think back on some of the mind-bending, utterly banal monologues which I’ve written to you in the past, I rather think that my omission may be counted a virtue rather than a sin!
I have, however, some good news to import to you. I had an interview with the estimable Edgar last Friday, and he told me: ‘Whether or not a formal recommendation has yet gone in, I have had several conversations with the Home Office about you, and I have got things moving at the end.’ He also said, ‘I am going to discharge you in the latter half of this year.’
As you see from my quotes, the pot is now almost boiling. Just think, Win, another few months and your friendly neighbourhood Frankenstein will be at liberty once again!!’325
The following week, Dr Udwin wrote formally to the Home Office. His letter begins: ‘I wish to recommend the conditional discharge of this young man. He was admitted on 5 July 1962 . . . ’326 After a relatively detailed resume of Graham’s time in Broadmoor, Udwin declared:
His interest in toxicology, Black Magic and Nazism have disappeared. He is still an extreme right-wing conservative, indeed, is a member of the National Front but has abandoned the swastika as an emblem of power. It is amusing to record that the day after the elections he was most anxious to see me to find out whether a Conservative Home Secretary would be less likely to accede to a recommendation for his discharge than a Labour one. It is interesting here to note that, despite merciless teasing from Labour members of the staff, he took it all in good part after receiving my assurance that political bias would not enter into the matter of his discharge.327
He observed ‘from a purely clinical point of view’ the ‘fairly profound changes’ that had taken place in Graham over the past three or four years and felt that he could now form relationships ‘other than with his aunt and uncle who were, in effect, his parent substitutes’.328 Graham’s attempts to join in social functions were still somewhat lacking due to an inherent difficulty in such matters.
Udwin had considered whether it might be wise to transfer Graham to another hospital as a starting point but decided against it on the grounds that ‘his reputation would spoil a fresh start in this fashion to say nothing of the difficulties of handing over such a long-term course in mid-career as it were. I have come to the conclusion that conditional discharge is the only feasible method of handling him.’329 Provided the Home Office agreed in principle with discharging Graham, Udwin would begin the long task of finding a suitable hostel relatively near to Broadmoor. Graham would initially be placed there for Udwin’s personal supervision with the aid of a probation officer and would seek clerical work.
The most crucial lines of Udwin’s letter appear mid-page. He states that not only was Graham able to take ‘a very rational view of his future’ and able to discuss his illness ‘with a growing degree of insight’ but that he was ‘no longer obsessed by thoughts of poisons, violence or mischief and is able to achieve satisfactions instead by appearing as one of the more stable and senior members of the ward’. Thus, Udwin declared with supreme confidence: ‘I am convinced that he is no longer a danger to others and that under proper supervision he will remain in this state.’330
With the psychiatrist’s glowing recommendation in mind, by the beginning of September all those agencies involved in approving Graham’s release had categorically decided that he was indeed ‘no longer a danger to others’ and should be returned to freedom.
Chapter Nine
WITHIN THE INFANT RIND OF THIS WEAK FLOWER
D
R UDWIN’S LETTER arrived at Winifred’s home in early November 1970. He wished to know whether she would be willing to accommodate her brother upon his imminent release and invited her to discuss the matter with him at Broadmoor. Winifred travelled to the hospital alone, having already spoken to her husband about it. They now had a settled family life with one infant daughter; home was a two-bedroom terraced property at 23 Ritcroft Close in Hemel Hempstead, where they had lived for the past five years. The young couple wanted to find the best option for everyone concerned, including Graham. Dr Udwin told her that in his opinion her brother was rehabilitated and there was ‘no danger’ of him returning to poisoning people and as a result she tentatively agreed that Graham could indeed live with her upon his release.331 After their meeting, Winifred spent some time with her brother, who was ‘thrilled’ at the thought of returning to normality.332 Her key question to Dr Udwin had been whether her brother was ‘cured’ of whatever caused him to act as he had before Broadmoor. She recalled: ‘I was told he was, by
the psychiatrists, and I believed it. But I feel now as I did then, that he should have had more supervision.’333
A Broadmoor report noted that the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Reginald Maudling, had agreed to Graham’s conditional discharge, having received reassurance from the hospital that ‘he is certainly no danger to anyone as far as poisons and poisoning is concerned’.334 The hospital felt that because Graham had been institutionalised since the age of 15, he would need ‘careful and constant support to help him adjust to a way of life that must be completely foreign and alien to him’.335 Graham’s acceptance of Dr Udwin was viewed as ‘an encouraging factor and seems to point to the fact that he is not incapable of making consistent relationships’.336
Plans for Graham’s release were given a further boost when a period of home leave was agreed. On 13 November 1970, Winifred received a telegram: ‘Permission for leave granted Graham from 21st or 22nd November for one week please confirm if convenient – E L Udwin.’337 She telegrammed by return; Denis then drove the two of them to collect Graham from Broadmoor. The young couple had already decided to place their trust in the authorities and to give Graham all the freedom he wanted without surreptitiously checking up on him. In her witness statement, Winifred explained: ‘I was apprehensive, but after I had spoken to Dr Udwin and received his assurance that we had nothing to fear from Graham, that he was cured, I accepted this and did my best to help him and encourage him to live a normal, happy life. I wish I had been more aware of possible danger but I’m afraid I accepted that he was now quite well.’338
At the end of the week, it seemed that her faith had been rewarded; Graham talked tentatively of his future plans, which comprised completing the government training scheme and then sitting an entrance exam for Sussex University, where he would study history with a view to becoming a teacher. He gave his sister and brother-in-law no cause for concern, spending most of his time listening to the Wagner records he had brought with him from Broadmoor. His conversations revolved almost exclusively around the German composer’s life and operas, or about the Great War. But Winifred reasoned that if he still had that obsessive element to his personality, then at least his new passions could bring no harm to anyone.
The success of Graham’s week away from Broadmoor saw him granted pre-discharge leave in Winifred’s care. After consultation with the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS), Home Secretary Reginald Maudling agreed to a second and third period of leave prior to conditional discharge. Once more, Winifred and Denis drove from Hemel Hempstead to Broadmoor on Saturday morning and brought Graham home to Ritcroft Close. Winifred’s recollection of her brother’s weekend with them differs from that of her aunt; she remembers him behaving ‘quite normally’ and talking ‘a lot about going back to Neasden’.339 According to Win, however: ‘He got drunk a couple of times and disgraced himself.’340 Sandra visited him that weekend: ‘He seemed to me to be embarrassed. He had grown up a lot since I had last seen him.’341
Whatever the truth of his sobriety, Graham received permission to spend Christmas with his sister and her family, leaving Broadmoor on 19 December. On this occasion, he was in exceptionally good spirits, feeling that release was now in sight. He talked excitedly about the training scheme in Slough and had accepted quite happily his sister’s final decision that he would have to find alternative permanent accommodation. He held no grudges; on the contrary, he seemed pleased by the prospect of complete independence. While Winifred prepared a meal, Denis took Graham to their local pub, where the locals were welcoming and impressed by his intelligence. On Christmas Eve, friends visited the house and Graham was again very sociable and happy. When the visitors had gone, Graham insisted that he couldn’t wait any longer to give his family their presents. Winifred unwrapped a pretty cigarette lighter, a huge box of chocolates and a leather-bound file in which to house copies of the Radio Times; Denis received a biography of Rommel, headed business cards and notepaper, and there were more small gifts for everyone, including his young niece, Clare, to whom he was affectionate. His quirky humour was evident in a card he presented to his sister’s beagle. Winifred recalled: ‘Graham loved animals, especially dogs . . . he was quite mad about our beagle, Rupert, who is a bit of a nut case.’342 The specially printed card read:
To whom it may concern: This is to certify that Rupert Beagle has undergone psychoanalysis and, contrary to appearances, is not suffering from hydrophobia or any other canine psychosis. Signed, Sigmund Freud.343
Winifred had noticed that her brother’s drinking was slightly excessive, but on Christmas Day he went to extremes and was roaring drunk by the afternoon. He woke contrite on Boxing Day and apologised repeatedly, but had caused no offence, only concern. He may have been nervous about the planned visit to Sheerness, having spoken at length to Winifred about his hopes of rebuilding a relationship with their father, whom he had not seen for some time. The visit went incredibly well; Winifred watched tearfully as Graham made a real effort with their father, who broke down and held his son. There was an extraordinary affection towards Graham from all family members. In her memoir, Winifred writes heartfeltly: ‘We all had a very happy Christmas . . . [Graham] just wanted to give. I do so want to say that despite the terrible things he has done and the grief he has caused, there were lots of nice things about Graham.’344
Dr Udwin recorded delightedly that Graham returned to Broadmoor for his last few weeks ‘in fine fettle’.345 On 15 January 1971, he drafted a medical certificate for Graham, which read:
This man has suffered a deep-going personality disorder which necessitated his hospitalisation throughout the whole of his adolescence. He has, however, made an extremely full recovery and is now entirely fit for discharge, his sole disability now being the need to catch up on his lost time. He is capable of undertaking any sort of work without any restrictions as to residence, travel or environment. His natural bent is towards the non-manual and clerical and in the first instance he would do extremely well training as a storekeeper. He is of above average intelligence and capable of sustained effort. He would fit in well and not draw any attention to himself in any community.
E L Udwin, Consultant Psychiatrist.346
The certificate would eventually be labelled ‘Exhibit 2’ at Graham’s second trial.
Graham visited the government training centre in Slough on 26 January 1971. He was accompanied by Broadmoor social worker Miss Rosalyn Brown, who introduced him to the man ultimately tasked with supervising him after his discharge from hospital, Robert Mynett of the Buckinghamshire Probation and After-Care Committee.
In the subsequent scramble for absolution by each authority involved in the decision to release Graham, the decisions and recall of events from this period remain contentious. Mynett later told detectives that during his first meeting with Graham, ‘I was told nothing about him other than that he had been a patient at this institution. I had a brief chat with him regarding domestic matters and he then left with Miss Brown in a police car.’347 Mynett’s witness statement does not record whether or not on that occasion he had requested further details of Graham’s background and offences.
Broadmoor sent the Home Office details of Graham’s discharge arrangements on 1 February. The following day, the warrant for his conditional discharge was issued.348 On 3 February, Dr Udwin wrote to inform Robert Mynett precisely what those conditions entitled: that upon leaving Broadmoor Graham should go immediately to Cippenham Lodge hostel, where he would reside under the supervision of a probation officer nominated by the Buckinghamshire Probation and After-Care Committee and that he must regularly attend a psychiatric outpatient clinic. Udwin included his own medical report on Graham with the letter. It stated:
Graham Young was admitted to this hospital in 1962 and suffers the severe handicap of having been out of circulation during his formative years. He suffered from a personality disorder which has responded extremely well to treatment and he is at the present time, in my view, fit to underta
ke any sort of work. His natural bent is towards the sedentary and the clerical, I should think; storekeeping is, at the outset, an admirable compromise. The problems he still has to deal with are those of establishing himself in the community. He will not, I think, be at ease in large groups for some time and although on a couple of periods of leave has shown himself very adaptable and flexible will, I think, still have problems generally in settling himself in a new environment. It is very hard to predict where problems may arise but I am quite sure his reaction to them will be no more than anxiety. I intend keeping very close touch with him and I am quite ready to answer phone queries regarding any problems at any time. There are no restrictions or limitations on the work that he may undertake, the distances he may travel or conditions of work.349
Mynett visited Broadmoor on the day of Graham’s release – Thursday, 4 February 1971 – to meet Dr Udwin and social worker Rosalyn Brown. It was standard procedure for the responsible probation officer to visit Broadmoor before the patient was released in order to discuss their case with a doctor and social worker. Although the probation service was later adamant they had little or no knowledge of Graham’s criminal past, the Home Office papers state that Dr Udwin had confirmed to them that during Mynett’s visit to Broadmoor, he was ‘shown and read the reports on the case that had been submitted to the Home Office and the doctor discussed the case fully with him. This was in accordance with the usual practice followed by Broadmoor in their arrangements for after-care; if the clinical supervision after discharge was to be undertaken by a doctor other than the Broadmoor consultant, full copies of the medical reports were sent to the doctor concerned.’350 This was not so in Graham’s case, but Udwin had provided Mynett with a copy of his report, despite some of his colleagues disapproving of the sharing of clinical reports. Udwin also insisted that a basic medical report had been sent to the doctor at the government training centre at Slough and ‘some information’ was provided to the disablement resettlement officer.351
A Passion for Poison Page 14
