A Passion for Poison

by Carol Ann Lee

  He paused,

  The Broadmoor experience thus far has had the tragic consequences of which we have learned in this trial. Your Lordship may think a prison sentence is preferable.701

  A thin smile crossed Graham’s face. He had got what he wanted; to be seen as evil rather than mad. And to serve out his days somewhere new, rather than return to loathsome Broadmoor and its ‘goons’ – staff and patients alike. He was quite calm as the judge handed out four life sentences: one each for the two counts of murder and two attempted murders, and ten years in total for administering poison to Hewitt and Smart.

  As Mr Justice Eveleigh ended his short speech, the foreman of the jury rose again to ask if he might make a statement on the jury’s behalf. The judge frowned behind his thick black spectacles: ‘In the circumstances, that would be highly undesirable.’ The foreman explained that they simply wanted to say something about the sale of poisons. Mr Justice Eveleigh then indicated for him to go ahead and the foreman read from a prepared statement: ‘The members of the jury in this case consider it to be our duty to draw the attention of the authorities concerned to the failings of the present system by which poisons are sold to the public. We urge that the system be reviewed in order that in future the public may be more consistently safeguarded.’702

  ‘Thank you,’ said Mr Justice Eveleigh, with a nod. ‘And thank you, too, for your close attention in this nasty case.’

  Win and Sandra had already spoken to Chief Inspector Kirkpatrick to ask if they could see Graham before he was taken away by prison van; as they left the public gallery, Graham’s solicitor, John Pickworth, appeared and led them downstairs.

  Pickworth showed the two women through a corridor and into a small room divided by a window with a grille. Sergeant Livingstone stood to greet them, drawing up chairs. Win began to cry when Graham entered on the other side of the glass. He was particularly pale-faced and subdued, asking how they both were, before stating quietly, ‘You’d do better if you followed the advice given you ten years ago and forget all about me.’703

  Win wept, insisting that nothing could be further from her mind or that of her daughter. ‘Why did you do it, Graham?’ she asked with a bewildered shake of her head, ‘Why did you do those things?’704

  Graham looked down and bit his lip. He said nothing.

  His aunt leaned forward, ‘Don’t waste what little time we have – talk to me.’705

  But having always appeared so eloquent, now he seemed unable to find the right words. Eventually, he looked up. ‘I am so sorry for the trouble I’ve caused you all.’706

  His aunt and cousin had no doubt that he meant what he said. Sandra recalled afterwards that he seemed ‘genuinely upset and what I call “his look” was entirely missing’.707 She had brought him a packet of cigarettes but had to pass them on to Sergeant Livingstone, who explained he could not take them into prison and would have to smoke them before he got there. But, he added, there were no restrictions on how many parcels and cigarettes that could be sent to him, unlike Broadmoor.

  At this, Win glanced at her nephew: ‘Do you think you’ll prefer prison, Graham?’708

  ‘Well, if this is what Broadmoor did for my condition in ten years, then I think I’ll be better off in prison.’709

  The guards approached Graham’s side of the divide. He looked over at Sergeant Livingstone. ‘Please send my regards to Superintendent Harvey and tell him there are no hard feelings as far as I’m concerned.’710 He told his aunt to give his regards to everyone, including Rupert, his sister’s dog.

  ‘Write and let me know where you are,’ said Sandra. ‘You will write, won’t you?’711

  ‘Yes, I will,’ he said. ‘But don’t tell Dad – let him come round in his own good time. Give my love to Uncle Jack too.’712

  One of the guards touched his shoulder.

  Graham got up, his chair scraping on the floor. He stood at the divide for a moment, then put his fingers to his lips, kissed them and pressed them against the glass. Then he turned and went out.

  The verdict was of sufficient interest for the BBC to interrupt their afternoon programmes with the announcement, while news of the trial’s end and its revelations saturated the tabloids and broadsheets, all of which featured the story on their front pages. Most newspapers ran a whole slew of accompanying stories examining the issues raised and featured interviews with those whose lives had been directly affected by Graham’s first and second welter of poisonings.

  ‘Scandal of the “Cured Killer”’ announced the Daily Mirror, whose chief crime reporter had tracked down Graham’s first victim, John Williams, ‘twenty-five now, a successful salesman, happily married – and healthy’. Williams recalled: ‘All those years ago, a detective told my mum that I was lucky to be alive. I reckon I am.’ His last surviving victim, Jethro Batt, described the slow process of recovering: ‘I couldn’t eat properly for weeks and I was impotent for two or three months after I was discharged from hospital. The doctors have tried to reassure me, but they can’t be certain that I won’t have some lasting effect from all this. The terrible part is that whatever I suffered, you can multiply five or six times over for my workmates Fred and Bob, who died.’713 Diana Smart continued to suffer vomiting, stomach ache, diarrhoea and muscular pains. Equally distressing was the depression that smothered her after the trial, leaving her unable to return to work until shortly before the new year.

  Hadlands’ managing director, Geoffrey Foster, was deeply regretful:

  Had I known of Graham Young’s background and subsequently employed him, then as soon as anyone was ill, particularly anyone working closely with him, I could have taken the appropriate action to see that this was investigated. As it was, Robert Egle was ill for four or five weeks before he was finally taken ill at the time which resulted in his death. Not only his life could have been saved but the second death would never have occurred and the people associated with this business who’ve experienced extreme suffering would have been protected from that.714

  Unbeknown to Geoffrey Foster and John Hadland, the Department of Employment held discussions about the situation, with one internal memo noting soberly: ‘One thing which remains to be done in the Young case is to mend our fences with the unfortunate employer Hadlands . . . ’ At the foot of the memo is an update: ‘Mr Walker rang. He spoke to the firm at length by phone and is satisfied that fences are now mended. The firm do not blame the Department of Employment. But is nevertheless very scarred by its whole experience.’715

  Graham’s family spoke to the press in some depth. Winifred commented: ‘I feel now as I did then, that he should have had more supervision.’716 Her story of growing up with a poison-obsessed brother was serialised in the News of the World, while the Sunday Mirror ran an extensive interview with Fred Young, who declared: ‘As far as I am concerned, my son Graham doesn’t exist any longer. From this moment on, I never want to hear his name mentioned.’717

  The crooked path Graham had taken from school to Broadmoor, then to Hadlands and back into captivity was the subject of lengthy media attention. Dr Hynd, the Medical Officer of Health who had investigated the ‘Bovingdon Bug’ at Hadlands, had his say in the press: ‘It seems vital that the community physician, as the Medical Officer of Health is to be called in the future, is given all the information necessary for carrying out his duties to protect the community. Surely this includes information about people like Young? The medical association urge that if there is any doubt about someone being a danger to the community, then the Medical Officer of Health should be told. That did not happen here.’718

  Dr Fysh was approached by reporters at his home in mid-Wales but had been forbidden from speaking about the case by the Home Office. He told them: ‘All I can say is that I have not seen this former patient for ten years, but I am likely to be of the same opinion now as I was ten years ago without having any further information to modify that opinion.’719 He could not resist adding: ‘He was put under the care of the Home Office who were re
sponsible for deciding to release him. I am sure those concerned acted in good faith and gave honest advice. Sometimes people are wrong.’720 A grim-faced Dr Udwin confronted reporters who gathered on his doorstep in Reading, asserting: ‘Medical ethics and the Official Secrets Act forbid my saying anything at all.’721

  Home Secretary Reginald Maudling addressed the House of Commons within an hour of the jury delivering their verdict. He declared that there would be two inquiries and pledged a review of every case of a patient on conditional discharge from hospital under Section 66(2) of the Mental Health Act 1959. One inquiry would be chaired by Sir Carl Aarvold, Recorder of London; the second by Conservative MP and former Home Secretary, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, who was also president of the National Association for Mental Health (later, MIND) and chairman of the trustees of the Mental Health Trust and Research Fund.

  Maudling revealed that a number of changes had already been introduced, specifically to protect the public from conditionally discharged patients. This included permitting social workers and probation officers to fully inform potential employers about such patients’ backgrounds, and further safeguarding the process of release. Shadow Home Secretary Shirley Williams wanted an assurance that all findings in respect to mistakes made in the Graham Young case would be made public. Maulding agreed: ‘The whole circumstances should be made public and they will be made public. We have nothing to conceal and nothing we want to conceal.’722 But when the time came, his promise of total transparency was not fulfilled.

  The Aarvold Report was the first to appear. Published in January 1973, it examined specific details of Graham’s case and led to reforms in how conditionally discharged patients were monitored upon release; it resulted in the newly established Advisory Board on Restricted Patients to screen all admissions and discharges. The Aarvold committee was comprised of medical professionals, lawyers and criminal justice experts. Their focus was to ascertain what had gone wrong in the exchange of information between the Broadmoor authorities, the probation service and the police. Their suggested amendments were accepted by the new Home Secretary, Robert Carr.

  Considerable efforts had been made to examine the process of conditional discharge and after-care from Broadmoor. Information was requested on all patients released since the 1960s who were still under active supervision, ‘with a view to identifying any cases giving rise to concern and, where possible, rectifying the situation’.723 A total of 331 Broadmoor patients had been discharged since 1960 into the community on the authority of the Home Secretary. Graham aside, two of those patients had subsequently committed homicide, and in both cases the offence occurred after active supervision of the patient had come to an end. Around 1,200 files were examined during the review. Most of those concerned had gone on to live lawful lives in the community, but the inquiry highlighted several cases where serious offences had been committed following discharge.

  One example was that of Alan Gay, sentenced on 5 February 1963 to six years’ imprisonment for the attempted murder and rape of his sister. Reported to be suffering from psychopathic disorder, he was transferred to Broadmoor in October 1963. A doctor recommended his return to prison in December 1966 after finding him ‘basically unchanged, unwilling to accept help and not requiring or susceptible to hospital treatment’. Gay remained in Broadmoor, however. In spring 1968, another consultant reported an ‘improvement’ in Gay’s attitude and asserted that he ‘would not be a danger’ to women. Gay was discharged in October 1968 into the supervision of a probation officer. He ‘quickly’ broke the conditions of his discharge ‘but restrictions ran out before he could be recalled’.724 In October 1969 he raped a 16-year-old girl and threatened to strangle her. He was then sentenced to life imprisonment. Another case was that of a Mrs Giles, who in March 1958 killed her 16-year-old son by putting sleeping pills in his tea and then striking him over the head with an axe. Sentenced to Broadmoor, she was conditionally discharged in October 1961 after Dr McGrath had reported no suggestion of depressive psychosis since autumn 1958 and found that she was unlikely to relapse, and ‘even if she did, [was] no danger to anyone except possibly herself’.725 In October 1968 Mrs Giles repeatedly attacked her husband about the head with a chamber pot. He died a few days later. Mrs Giles was convicted of manslaughter and returned to Broadmoor where she was diagnosed with ‘recurrent psychotic depression’.726

  The findings of the inquiry into the specific circumstances of Graham’s release took the form of over 80 questions and answers. Declaring that ‘this particular case – of a boy poisoner – is unique in forensic psychiatric experience,’ the review noted again that ‘Young is probably unique but there are some 600 patients who are subject to conditional discharges from various hospitals.’ Many of them were concerned in offences far less serious than Graham Young’s, including non-violent offences. It was extremely unusual that Graham should have been admitted to Broadmoor at such a young age, given that in the five years preceding 1971, ten patients aged 14 were admitted to special hospitals, though none of them to Broadmoor. A total of 147 patients aged over 14 and under 18 were admitted, of whom 17, all over 16 years old, entered Broadmoor. The review confirmed that Graham had been released ‘on the advice of the experienced consultant psychiatrist (Dr Udwin) at Broadmoor Hospital who was in charge of his treatment there, by authority of a warrant issued on behalf of the Home Secretary after careful review within the Home Office.’ The Home Secretary had been able to set aside the restrictions on discharges which the court ordered to last for 15 years because the effect of the restriction order was to make Graham’s release within that period subject to the Home Secretary’s consent, not to forbid it entirely. Dr Udwin’s recommendation of discharge was endorsed by the DHSS before the decision as to discharge was reached; furthermore ‘all the consultants at the hospital knew of the intention to discharge Young and none said that they felt it to be undesirable. The other consultant who was directly responsible for Young’s treatment in his early years at Broadmoor examined him again in 1969 and found him very much matured, relaxed and controlled. He knew of and concurred with the proposal to discharge Young in 1971.’ Dr Udwin had been responsible for the discharge of 13 patients – including Graham Young – since February 1971 and the transfer of another 34 into the care of NHS hospitals.

  The much-vaunted media suggestion that doctors were under pressure to release patients from Broadmoor to allow new admissions was specifically answered by the DHSS, who declared: ‘The hospital has been overcrowded for many years but there has been no pressure to discharge patients prematurely for this reason; each case is considered with great care.’ Positing the question ‘Are the doctors at Broadmoor well enough qualified to do the job expected of them?’ the review stated emphatically: ‘Yes, they have unrivalled experience of the problems involved in the treatment of mentally disordered patients with violent, dangerous or criminal propensities.’

  Regarding Dr Fysh’s prescient conclusion in 1962 that the outlook for Graham was troubling and that he was likely to repeat his offences if the opportunity were available, the review sidestepped the issue of whether his views were taken into account at the time of Graham’s release, but insisted: ‘ . . . in the earlier stages the doctors at Broadmoor were also very dubious about Young’s prospects but their views changed after observation of his response to treatment.’ The supervision afforded Graham after his release failed to detect his crimes because ‘it would have been impossible for the probation officers to maintain surveillance for 24 hours a day. Young showed himself co-operative towards his supervisors, anxious to keep his appointments with them and ready to discuss his own progress. Poisoning is a clandestine activity and Young gave no indication of sinister behaviour.’ The review found that arrangements for training and employment of Broadmoor patients generally worked well: in the past four years, 14 patients from Broadmoor, including Graham, had taken courses at government training centres; eight had successfully completed their courses and two were still under traini
ng; one returned to Broadmoor voluntarily and three either gave up their courses or had them terminated. The disablement settlement officer at Reading had, in the last two years, successfully placed Broadmoor patients in employment or in training centres. The majority of patients discharged from Broadmoor found work by other methods, with the help of the hospital authorities ‘and these arrangements appear to work well’.

  Regarding the issue of how Graham was able, as a conditionally discharged Broadmoor patient who had been convicted of poisoning, to obtain poisons, the review stated: ‘Before his trial only three purchases of poisons by Young had been traced. These were made at two retail pharmacies and on each occasion an entry was made as required by law in the seller’s poisons book, but Young appears to have given false particulars, including a false name and address. Further investigations are being made into this aspect of the affair – they could not be started before the conclusion of the trial – and no further comment can be made until they are completed.’

  In terms of what was being done to prevent similar purchases being made in the future, the review found that:

  the question is really whether the purchases we know about show that the law is defective, or that it simply was not properly observed, and this cannot be fairly answered until we have the results of the investigation now in progress. However, it is necessary to stress that the law has been framed to deter, but cannot be expected totally to prevent, the purchase of poisons by a person who is intent on poisoning, and almost certainly, therefore, trying to disguise his intentions. In the case of the more dangerous poisons (e.g. arsenic, potassium cyanide, thallium salt) the law provides that the purpose for which the purchaser requires the poison is declared and recorded in the seller’s poisons book along with particulars such as the name, address and occupation of the purchaser. Furthermore, the purchaser must be known to the seller as a person to whom the poison may properly be sold, and the purchaser must sign the entry in the poisons book.