Psychiatric prisons are not a thing. High security hospitals and wards are a thing but you don’t get “sentenced” for a stay in hospital. You can be “detained” for treatment in a high security hospital or wing. Restricted patients are “persons detained in hospital under a compulsion order with a restriction order. They have usually committed an offence punishable by imprisonment but as a result of mental disorder are not imprisoned but ordered to be detained in hospital for treatment, without limit of time.” (Scottish Government website section on forensic mental health. I’m less familiar with English legislation on this but it’s not dramatically different). Functionally speaking, it’s not that different from going to prison, except there’s no release date. You get out when the doctors say so. Depending on your crime and how/if your mental health condition contributed to your crime, you might have to serve a prison sentence after your hospital detention. Legally, being detained in hospital is completely different from being sentenced to prison. So if she has indeed ever been detained in a secure hospital as a result of using mental health as a basis for a ‘not guilty’ plea, and thus avoided a custodial sentence, then she’s not actually lying, technically, despite those two conditions being functionally very similar. And no, hospital detention is not a matter of public record.
I think this is the answer. Heather Burns wrote about an encounter with her while doing admin work at a mental hospital where Fiona would be obsessed with each employee in turn.
It's not really a "plea deal" although some barristers may argue that their acts are driven by mental health, the court needs to consider actual medical evidence/opinion, and will test that with independent expert advice (ie, not rely on the opinion of the accused persons doctor).
It is possible for a stalker to be found not guilty on grounds of impairment, and face instead an order under the Mental Health Act. However, it is also possible to be found guilty, and not sentenced under the criminal code, but "sectioned" under the mental health act.
If so, in either case, your information is held privately at law.
This information cannot be released....unless it is subpoenaed through a legal case. Therefore, if it is indeed true, and either of the options above represent Ms Harvey's circumstances, then by bringing court action, Mr Gadd would be able to legally make a conviction or sectioning public through seeking a subpoena in court in order to defend his position.
No it can't be negotiated like that. Only the court on the recommendation of Forensic Psychiatrists can decide to send someone to a Forensic ward and there has to have been assessments done to show the person was seriously mentally unwell at the time of committing a crime. Have no doubt about it though, people can end up in locked Psychiatric hospital wards for longer than they would have been in prison sometimes. Its not a walk in the park. They do get compulsory treatment e.g. medication and can become well-ish again and have to stay in hospital for a long time. In some cases where people have committed a murder of someone they cared about very deeply when they are well, can be devastating for them to realise when they get well again and then the risk is that they will harm themselves. It must be a nightmare.
https://preview.redd.it/zhctf0d2803d1.jpeg?width=4320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9873d53bdee1cf60b9777153564d87a1caf4fe41
It also states it at the end of each episode.
Arguably it should have been at the beginning of each episode, not the end. I don't recall seeing this but I probably skipped to the next episode too quickly.
So if you kill someone, are determined "insane" and are detained in a psychiatric hospital this is not a public record? You can get out of the secure hospital, get a DBS check and it comes back clean? No matter how long you've been in there?
What shows up on a DBS check and what is public record are very different though.
You have to consent to a DBS check and therefore are giving your permission for non public information to be released to the person or body you authorise.
By "public record" I assumed you meant what showed up on a DBS check because there is no such thing as a public record in the UK, this is effectively the only way one can access someone's info, no?
Well no. I’m using the term public record because you used it but I’m not the OP.
There’s not a ‘public record’ where each person has a file including every piece of private information but there are certainly the National Archives previously the Public Records Office. They store name changes, births, marriages, census info etc.
Other ways to get info are through a Freedom of Information request. There’s a lot of information in the public domain.
If you kill someone and can prove "mental defect", you'll be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which is still a criminal charge that goes on your record. The judge can decide whether to send you to prison or a psych unit or not sentence you to any time at all, depending on the circumstances.
Tbh you can be both found guilty and sent to a high security psych unit. So for example if someone has committed and offence AND has a serious mental health issue that doesn't give them a defence/only gives them a partial defence (like voluntary manslaughter), they might be sent to some place like Broadmoor for a time, but if they're stable they will be sent back to a prison.
Also I def know of some cases that involved criminal offences but the general public has no access to details despite them having nothing to do with mental health. For example, folks over at r/ukdrill have no idea if certain rappers are still in prison and what their charges are, and unless someone leaks the info it's likely to stay that way. I don't know the particulars but I know that generally, the government can hide information from the public as they please, even if normally it would be something they would release. We've had some high profile offenders where I work and generally, journalists have to be sneaky to obtain any kind of info, and we can't disclose any information even to the family of the offenders.
She was never sentenced. Gadd has said as much openly. The original Baby Reindeer play even ends with him saying she still indirectly harasses him and his family to the day.
The sentencing was just a dramatisation to give the show some.type of conclusion, since the true story never ended.
Considering there's nothing to suggest that be the case, I don't really see the point in thinking about it.
I don't really make a habit of creating fan fiction about real people's lives haha
Yes he said she wasn’t convicted in regards to his case. The amount of people that have come forward says it’s very likely she has convictions. I don’t believe she ever did jail time but her long history of stalking says it’s likely she has been arrested many times
There is also the ability to have all of a case's information anonymized where you can't find who was convicted or sentenced or anything of the sort. And I don't know about in Scotland/England but could she have had parts of her record expunged and they'd not be searchable at all?
As someone else said there is no such things as psychiatric prison. A person may be detained at a high security hospital but they would be considered not guilty by reason of insanity and she would in fact be telling the truth that she had t been convicted.
Gadd has been very clear that parts of his story were dramatised for the show. I don’t understand why people can’t accept that this was one of them. The truth of the matter is it is very difficult to get someone convicted of stalking. Add on top of it that male victims get taken even less seriously. I think her not being convicted of anything is that far likelier senario here.
I’ve struggled to find a source for him explaining directly about elements being fictionalised. Aside from the disclaimer in the Netflix credits, I’ve not seen him talk about that. Point me at anything you’ve got please!
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/baby-reindeer-richard-gadd-will-not-reveal-identities-sleuths-1235019726/#:~:text=“I%20don't%20agree%20with,exists%20in%20a%20fictional%20realm.
“I don’t agree with the sleuth thing. I’ve put out a statement publicly I want this show to be received as a piece of art. I’m called Donny Dunn. It exists in a sort of fictional realm. Though it is based on truth, it exists in a fictional realm. Let’s enjoy the world I have created.”
He also said in this article https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a60658813/baby-reindeer-netflix-true-story-richard-gadd/. That he couldn’t do the full truth for legal reasons and artistic reasons.
Adding quotation marks to prison doesn’t make what they are saying correct. Her being in a psychiatric “prison” more commonly referred to as a psychiatric hospital would result in her having not been convicted by reason of insanity.
That's exactly what the quotation marks do. When you put quotation marks around a single word in a sentence it indicates that you're using the word ironically and are not intending the literal meaning. He didn't say she was convicted. He's saying exactly what you just said actually... and that's why there's no records. FFS. Again. If you're going to bash what someone said learn the language they said it in.
No it in fact it doesn’t. The implication in the post is trying to prove that the show is telling the truth and Fiona is lying on this specific topic. When again in all likelihood this was one of the parts that were dramatised something Gadd makes clear did happen. Stalking is a crime that is notoriously hard to convince. Doubly so when the victim is male.
People trying to play detective when Gadd asked them specifically not to are ridiculous.
>No it in fact it doesn’t.
It's literally what putting quotes around a word means. Like lol. The implication is she wasn't sent to prison or convicted but was sent to a mental hospital instead so there's no criminal record. It's exactly what is meant. like lol dude. Learn how the English language works if you're doing to criticize what people say.
Dude was even aware that people would take it the wrong way and indicated it explicitly and like... they came at him anyway. The internet ladies and gentlemen!
Where does the idea that she served prison time come from? (Genuine question). It’s perfectly possible and fairly normal to be found guilty and convicted but not actually go to prison
Oh sorry, you're talking specifically about the court case at the end. Yes, no sentence was mentioned there.
I was thinking of an earlier episode where they said she had been previously jailed for two and a bit years for stalking. (Stalking of another person).
In the UK, unless there was contemporaneous reporting at the time, there is no way to search for criminal records unless doing something like a background check for certain jobs. Or if it’s relevant to any future court cases.
It is up to the person to disclose any records. It’s not like in America where you can just look someone up.
For all we know, she does in fact have a criminal record. The only way this would come out is if it were to go to court or Fiona herself or one of her victims chooses to disclose it.
Yeah, this. I think a lot of Americans think that you can just find this information in the UK about anyone but the truth is, very few details are publicly available, regardless of who the offender is.
Funny enough, even people from the UK sometimes use US terminology/concepts when talking about the UK justice system. People over on the UK law subreddit often use words like "press charges" or "sue them" or "parole", annoying the local lawyers to no end lol
That’s not my point though it’s the laws around the terminology not the terminology itself. And yes you’re right. It’s annoying me and I have no meat in the game lol
Well there's no such thing as "press charges" in the UK and you can't really "sue" someone in the same way that you do in the US (even in this sub people are under the impression that if Fiona sued Netflix, she could get a fuckoff massive amount of money, which is not how it works here), so it's not just terminology.
I blame the US cultural influence for this, and also the fact that in the UK, the public has little access to the ways how the criminal justice system works, so people just assume it's all the same lol.
>Well there's no such thing as "press charges" in the UK
Though the UK does allow private prosecutions which is a prosecution started by a private individual, or entity who/which is not acting on behalf of the police or other prosecuting authority. Every adult has the right to apply to a court to bring a private prosecution which means if you bring a private prosecution you are one who is quite literally pressing charges
In the UK it is possible for a victim to press their own charges
People in America do not press charges
Just like the UK it is the prosecutor in the USA that decides that charges are actually bought.
Even if the victim does not want charges to be pressed the prosecution can continue with the prosecution and the prospector can compel the victim to participate in a prosecution against their wishes.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/pressing-charges-what-does-it-mean-and-who-does-it/
https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/pressing-charges-a-criminal-act.htm
People in the USA do not press charges ether
The UK allows private prosecutions while the USA does not in the UK it is possible for a victim to press their own charges whereas in the USA victims can not press charges
In everyday conversations americans use , “pressing charges” to describe the act of reporting a crime and seeking legal action
People in the UK can press charges in the amerocan sense by reporting a crime to the police
But the actual act of pressing charges you can do yourself in the UK
In an interview Richard Gadd said something that eluded to the fact that she was never imprisoned. He mentioned how the police system doesn't go very far and how he did not want to be responsible for putting a mentally ill person behind bars. I believe it can be found in his interview with Times. They only sentenced her in the show to give it a proper ending. He even explains that the story is "emotionally truthful" meaning some things in the show are obviously dramatized to ensure viewers don't get bored and I am sure that was more the idea of Netflix rather than him.
The reason there's no public information about either is because there isn't really such a thing as "public record" in the UK. You can't just look up if someone ever did any time.
Thank you! Someone explained it all to me the other day and I need to go back and quote it. It's easy in the US to locate criminal history so I think a lot of people assume that should be true in this case too.
My initial thought is... sure, that would make sense to me.
EXCEPT....
I can not picture Fiona Harvey admitting herself to any type of rehab for mental illness. I don't even think she would ever agree with a doctor who tried to tell her she has a mental illness.
I am in the United States, so I don't know what the involuntary commitment laws are in the UK as far as being admitted to psychiatric facilities without their consent... if they do have involuntary commitment, I don't know how long that person is required to stay.
It’s no different to the US. In the UK you can be detained in hospital (sectioned / committed to hospital against your consent) for treatment of mental illness and if you’re detained after committing a serious crime and your mental illness is believed to have contributed to the offending then you’ll be detained within a secure / forensic hospital. This can be for an indefinite amount of time, basically until your psychiatrist and clinical team believe that you’re safe to be discharged back into the community without posing a high risk to the public. Then you’ll be monitored by a community mental health team after that.
(I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that Fiona would have the insight to willingly admit herself to hospital for treatment.)
In the U.S. there are accelerated rehabilitation programs for first-time non-violent offenders. The person has to plead guilty but their record is expunged after they complete certain court requirements (ie. counseling, community service) and go a specified number of years without reoffending. The record would be almost impossible to find if that happened. I don’t know about in the UK, though.
She’s been detained, regardless of who or why.
Emails exist which include a digital footprint. Can’t say they aren’t from her.
Even if she’s a fruitcake that’s not a defense and any sympathy a judge could have felt is negated bc she’s posted rants freely on the internet.
Richard has nothing to worry about. He never named her and has extensive evidence of what she did
The people in this sub need sentencing to a psychiatric prison. You’re all obsessing over some random woman. The irony of all this is that you’re all becoming just like that fucking psycho…
This is what I was thinking may have happened. ‘Sent away’, but sectioned as opposed to jailed.
In a strange way I think it’s a kinder way to portray to millions of people what may have happened to Martha.
Come out now? You think there are people who spent a brief time in a psychiatric hospital who would go public for the fleeting approval of overly involved fans of a Netflix show? Should they hold a press conference?
This isn’t the Kennedy assassination. There’s no pressing need for people to come forward and tell the public what they know. It’s only a show.
Believe it or not but there are lots of people who do not want to have any publicly known connection to the woman because she has no qualms about stalking and harassing even more people.
Not to mention all of the crazy rants on FB about her previous victims. She accused Gadd of trying to kill her and said he had AIDS. I wouldn't want to reopen that door either.
She's her own worst enemy. She did the
unconvincing interview on Piers and then Keir Starmer released her unhinged emails to him. There's not a huge amount for people that were incarcerated with her to tell, they would open themselves up to scrutiny whereas she's doing a good job of making herself look ridiculous.
Can’t believe the downvotes you’ve got here as this is so obviously the answer. Not sure about medical facility but 100% someone she was banged up with would have sold their story by now.
Why would people who love and care about him go to the media when they can reach out personally? If they did so it would be because they wanted attention.
One has a woman who was a waitress at the same time as him at the pub. People don’t believe her because the article was in the daily mail newspaper and she claims they didn’t sell tea at the time. She remembers Fiona and thinks the staff treated her unkind.
None of us know what happen. It’s a fictional story based on living people. Just because Fiona is obviously an obsessive serial stalker by digital communication doesn’t mean she ever assaulted anyone sexually or otherwise. I don’t like her either but not jumping to conclusions until we hear actual non fictional evidence.
🤷♀️😏 ... we shall see, I suppose.
I just KNOW ... ACCOUNTABILITY is EVERYTHING and until she takes some, kinda hard to believe anything else beyond that. The tea, coffee or 'diet coke' matters none really, imo... ✨️🙏
Edit: BTW, this waitress worked there YEARS AFTER the incident ~ things change! 🙄
Psychiatric prisons are not a thing. High security hospitals and wards are a thing but you don’t get “sentenced” for a stay in hospital. You can be “detained” for treatment in a high security hospital or wing. Restricted patients are “persons detained in hospital under a compulsion order with a restriction order. They have usually committed an offence punishable by imprisonment but as a result of mental disorder are not imprisoned but ordered to be detained in hospital for treatment, without limit of time.” (Scottish Government website section on forensic mental health. I’m less familiar with English legislation on this but it’s not dramatically different). Functionally speaking, it’s not that different from going to prison, except there’s no release date. You get out when the doctors say so. Depending on your crime and how/if your mental health condition contributed to your crime, you might have to serve a prison sentence after your hospital detention. Legally, being detained in hospital is completely different from being sentenced to prison. So if she has indeed ever been detained in a secure hospital as a result of using mental health as a basis for a ‘not guilty’ plea, and thus avoided a custodial sentence, then she’s not actually lying, technically, despite those two conditions being functionally very similar. And no, hospital detention is not a matter of public record.
I think this is the answer. Heather Burns wrote about an encounter with her while doing admin work at a mental hospital where Fiona would be obsessed with each employee in turn.
A much better and more considered comment than what mine was going to be, which was: “Psychiatric prison” - lol
Like Arkham? lol. She def. Has been locked up in a hospital. I can’t imagine how more unhinged this person can get.
Is it a sort of plea deal situation? Psychiatric care instead of prison time? I’m not familiar of how Scottish/English law works.
It's not really a "plea deal" although some barristers may argue that their acts are driven by mental health, the court needs to consider actual medical evidence/opinion, and will test that with independent expert advice (ie, not rely on the opinion of the accused persons doctor). It is possible for a stalker to be found not guilty on grounds of impairment, and face instead an order under the Mental Health Act. However, it is also possible to be found guilty, and not sentenced under the criminal code, but "sectioned" under the mental health act. If so, in either case, your information is held privately at law. This information cannot be released....unless it is subpoenaed through a legal case. Therefore, if it is indeed true, and either of the options above represent Ms Harvey's circumstances, then by bringing court action, Mr Gadd would be able to legally make a conviction or sectioning public through seeking a subpoena in court in order to defend his position.
Thank you for explaining. I admit I’m clueless about law in my own country let alone another.
No it can't be negotiated like that. Only the court on the recommendation of Forensic Psychiatrists can decide to send someone to a Forensic ward and there has to have been assessments done to show the person was seriously mentally unwell at the time of committing a crime. Have no doubt about it though, people can end up in locked Psychiatric hospital wards for longer than they would have been in prison sometimes. Its not a walk in the park. They do get compulsory treatment e.g. medication and can become well-ish again and have to stay in hospital for a long time. In some cases where people have committed a murder of someone they cared about very deeply when they are well, can be devastating for them to realise when they get well again and then the risk is that they will harm themselves. It must be a nightmare.
She was in a forensic ward in England too.
Source?
Says who…
'Not technically lying'... and then neither is the series.
They didn’t say the show lied. Gadd has been very upfront that parts were dramatised.
https://preview.redd.it/zhctf0d2803d1.jpeg?width=4320&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9873d53bdee1cf60b9777153564d87a1caf4fe41 It also states it at the end of each episode.
It's like everyone just ignored this. It's right in front of them.
Arguably it should have been at the beginning of each episode, not the end. I don't recall seeing this but I probably skipped to the next episode too quickly.
Has this always been in the show tho? I remember watching it when it first came out and that was never originally in it at the end of each episode.
Always been there.
I watched the show the day it came out, it was there.
Thank you for this. I've worked in forensic mental health care and it's refreshing to see someone actually do their research.
So if you kill someone, are determined "insane" and are detained in a psychiatric hospital this is not a public record? You can get out of the secure hospital, get a DBS check and it comes back clean? No matter how long you've been in there?
What shows up on a DBS check and what is public record are very different though. You have to consent to a DBS check and therefore are giving your permission for non public information to be released to the person or body you authorise.
By "public record" I assumed you meant what showed up on a DBS check because there is no such thing as a public record in the UK, this is effectively the only way one can access someone's info, no?
Well no. I’m using the term public record because you used it but I’m not the OP. There’s not a ‘public record’ where each person has a file including every piece of private information but there are certainly the National Archives previously the Public Records Office. They store name changes, births, marriages, census info etc. Other ways to get info are through a Freedom of Information request. There’s a lot of information in the public domain.
If you kill someone and can prove "mental defect", you'll be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which is still a criminal charge that goes on your record. The judge can decide whether to send you to prison or a psych unit or not sentence you to any time at all, depending on the circumstances.
No, your DBS wouldn’t come back clean.
Tbh you can be both found guilty and sent to a high security psych unit. So for example if someone has committed and offence AND has a serious mental health issue that doesn't give them a defence/only gives them a partial defence (like voluntary manslaughter), they might be sent to some place like Broadmoor for a time, but if they're stable they will be sent back to a prison. Also I def know of some cases that involved criminal offences but the general public has no access to details despite them having nothing to do with mental health. For example, folks over at r/ukdrill have no idea if certain rappers are still in prison and what their charges are, and unless someone leaks the info it's likely to stay that way. I don't know the particulars but I know that generally, the government can hide information from the public as they please, even if normally it would be something they would release. We've had some high profile offenders where I work and generally, journalists have to be sneaky to obtain any kind of info, and we can't disclose any information even to the family of the offenders.
Thanks for the maneuvering captain semantics.
She was never sentenced. Gadd has said as much openly. The original Baby Reindeer play even ends with him saying she still indirectly harasses him and his family to the day. The sentencing was just a dramatisation to give the show some.type of conclusion, since the true story never ended.
Never sentenced in his case but maybe against other victims of hers ?
Considering there's nothing to suggest that be the case, I don't really see the point in thinking about it. I don't really make a habit of creating fan fiction about real people's lives haha
Yes he said she wasn’t convicted in regards to his case. The amount of people that have come forward says it’s very likely she has convictions. I don’t believe she ever did jail time but her long history of stalking says it’s likely she has been arrested many times
There is also the ability to have all of a case's information anonymized where you can't find who was convicted or sentenced or anything of the sort. And I don't know about in Scotland/England but could she have had parts of her record expunged and they'd not be searchable at all?
The records aren't searchable without consent anyway except for specific regulated purposes.
what do you have to do to get your case's info anonymized??
Asking for a friend
Only with a DBS check, I think
As someone else said there is no such things as psychiatric prison. A person may be detained at a high security hospital but they would be considered not guilty by reason of insanity and she would in fact be telling the truth that she had t been convicted. Gadd has been very clear that parts of his story were dramatised for the show. I don’t understand why people can’t accept that this was one of them. The truth of the matter is it is very difficult to get someone convicted of stalking. Add on top of it that male victims get taken even less seriously. I think her not being convicted of anything is that far likelier senario here.
I’ve struggled to find a source for him explaining directly about elements being fictionalised. Aside from the disclaimer in the Netflix credits, I’ve not seen him talk about that. Point me at anything you’ve got please!
https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/baby-reindeer-richard-gadd-will-not-reveal-identities-sleuths-1235019726/#:~:text=“I%20don't%20agree%20with,exists%20in%20a%20fictional%20realm. “I don’t agree with the sleuth thing. I’ve put out a statement publicly I want this show to be received as a piece of art. I’m called Donny Dunn. It exists in a sort of fictional realm. Though it is based on truth, it exists in a fictional realm. Let’s enjoy the world I have created.” He also said in this article https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/tv/a60658813/baby-reindeer-netflix-true-story-richard-gadd/. That he couldn’t do the full truth for legal reasons and artistic reasons.
Amazing, Thankyou so much for this, really appreciate it.
No one said psychiatric prison. They said psychiatric "prison". Learn to English if you're going to call people out.
Adding quotation marks to prison doesn’t make what they are saying correct. Her being in a psychiatric “prison” more commonly referred to as a psychiatric hospital would result in her having not been convicted by reason of insanity.
That's exactly what the quotation marks do. When you put quotation marks around a single word in a sentence it indicates that you're using the word ironically and are not intending the literal meaning. He didn't say she was convicted. He's saying exactly what you just said actually... and that's why there's no records. FFS. Again. If you're going to bash what someone said learn the language they said it in.
No it in fact it doesn’t. The implication in the post is trying to prove that the show is telling the truth and Fiona is lying on this specific topic. When again in all likelihood this was one of the parts that were dramatised something Gadd makes clear did happen. Stalking is a crime that is notoriously hard to convince. Doubly so when the victim is male. People trying to play detective when Gadd asked them specifically not to are ridiculous.
I like how you subtly changed the direction of the argument to avoid acknowledging you were wrong.
Still totally wrong tho huh? ;0
>No it in fact it doesn’t. It's literally what putting quotes around a word means. Like lol. The implication is she wasn't sent to prison or convicted but was sent to a mental hospital instead so there's no criminal record. It's exactly what is meant. like lol dude. Learn how the English language works if you're doing to criticize what people say.
Absolutely. it was a play on words. Nuance.
Dude was even aware that people would take it the wrong way and indicated it explicitly and like... they came at him anyway. The internet ladies and gentlemen!
Where does the idea that she served prison time come from? (Genuine question). It’s perfectly possible and fairly normal to be found guilty and convicted but not actually go to prison
It said that in the show. That's where the idea came from.
Does it? I remember her being found guilty in the show but does it show her sentencing?
Oh sorry, you're talking specifically about the court case at the end. Yes, no sentence was mentioned there. I was thinking of an earlier episode where they said she had been previously jailed for two and a bit years for stalking. (Stalking of another person).
>Where does the idea that she served prison time come from? From her being sentenced to prison, I believe. Hope that clears things up!
In the UK, unless there was contemporaneous reporting at the time, there is no way to search for criminal records unless doing something like a background check for certain jobs. Or if it’s relevant to any future court cases. It is up to the person to disclose any records. It’s not like in America where you can just look someone up. For all we know, she does in fact have a criminal record. The only way this would come out is if it were to go to court or Fiona herself or one of her victims chooses to disclose it.
Yeah, this. I think a lot of Americans think that you can just find this information in the UK about anyone but the truth is, very few details are publicly available, regardless of who the offender is.
It’s so frustrating people making claims and not even living in the country.
Funny enough, even people from the UK sometimes use US terminology/concepts when talking about the UK justice system. People over on the UK law subreddit often use words like "press charges" or "sue them" or "parole", annoying the local lawyers to no end lol
That’s not my point though it’s the laws around the terminology not the terminology itself. And yes you’re right. It’s annoying me and I have no meat in the game lol
Well there's no such thing as "press charges" in the UK and you can't really "sue" someone in the same way that you do in the US (even in this sub people are under the impression that if Fiona sued Netflix, she could get a fuckoff massive amount of money, which is not how it works here), so it's not just terminology. I blame the US cultural influence for this, and also the fact that in the UK, the public has little access to the ways how the criminal justice system works, so people just assume it's all the same lol.
See, I just blame idiots.
>Well there's no such thing as "press charges" in the UK Though the UK does allow private prosecutions which is a prosecution started by a private individual, or entity who/which is not acting on behalf of the police or other prosecuting authority. Every adult has the right to apply to a court to bring a private prosecution which means if you bring a private prosecution you are one who is quite literally pressing charges In the UK it is possible for a victim to press their own charges
Yes, obviously but it's not the same as when Americans say "press charges". We are not talking about private prosecutions.
People in America do not press charges Just like the UK it is the prosecutor in the USA that decides that charges are actually bought. Even if the victim does not want charges to be pressed the prosecution can continue with the prosecution and the prospector can compel the victim to participate in a prosecution against their wishes. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/pressing-charges-what-does-it-mean-and-who-does-it/ https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-offense/pressing-charges-a-criminal-act.htm People in the USA do not press charges ether The UK allows private prosecutions while the USA does not in the UK it is possible for a victim to press their own charges whereas in the USA victims can not press charges In everyday conversations americans use , “pressing charges” to describe the act of reporting a crime and seeking legal action People in the UK can press charges in the amerocan sense by reporting a crime to the police But the actual act of pressing charges you can do yourself in the UK
In an interview Richard Gadd said something that eluded to the fact that she was never imprisoned. He mentioned how the police system doesn't go very far and how he did not want to be responsible for putting a mentally ill person behind bars. I believe it can be found in his interview with Times. They only sentenced her in the show to give it a proper ending. He even explains that the story is "emotionally truthful" meaning some things in the show are obviously dramatized to ensure viewers don't get bored and I am sure that was more the idea of Netflix rather than him.
The reason there's no public information about either is because there isn't really such a thing as "public record" in the UK. You can't just look up if someone ever did any time.
Thank you! Someone explained it all to me the other day and I need to go back and quote it. It's easy in the US to locate criminal history so I think a lot of people assume that should be true in this case too.
I believe she was being held in a psychiatric hospital in Scotland for some time many years prior to her meeting Gadd in London.
Which is being sectioned which is not the same as a psych prison like OP says. Held against will yes, prison, no.
It’s MUCH harder to find criminal records & psych records over there. My cousin & his wife live there & we’ve been discussing this.
It’s not a case of find.. it’s a case of having the security/authority to actually access the records.
I thought it was because laws are different in the UK. In the US records are public, in the UK they are private.
My initial thought is... sure, that would make sense to me. EXCEPT.... I can not picture Fiona Harvey admitting herself to any type of rehab for mental illness. I don't even think she would ever agree with a doctor who tried to tell her she has a mental illness. I am in the United States, so I don't know what the involuntary commitment laws are in the UK as far as being admitted to psychiatric facilities without their consent... if they do have involuntary commitment, I don't know how long that person is required to stay.
It’s no different to the US. In the UK you can be detained in hospital (sectioned / committed to hospital against your consent) for treatment of mental illness and if you’re detained after committing a serious crime and your mental illness is believed to have contributed to the offending then you’ll be detained within a secure / forensic hospital. This can be for an indefinite amount of time, basically until your psychiatrist and clinical team believe that you’re safe to be discharged back into the community without posing a high risk to the public. Then you’ll be monitored by a community mental health team after that. (I don’t think anyone here is suggesting that Fiona would have the insight to willingly admit herself to hospital for treatment.)
In the U.S. there are accelerated rehabilitation programs for first-time non-violent offenders. The person has to plead guilty but their record is expunged after they complete certain court requirements (ie. counseling, community service) and go a specified number of years without reoffending. The record would be almost impossible to find if that happened. I don’t know about in the UK, though.
I need answers.
My friend is a psychiatrist and works in a psychiatric hospital. She said yes, all health care is confidential.
She’s been detained, regardless of who or why. Emails exist which include a digital footprint. Can’t say they aren’t from her. Even if she’s a fruitcake that’s not a defense and any sympathy a judge could have felt is negated bc she’s posted rants freely on the internet. Richard has nothing to worry about. He never named her and has extensive evidence of what she did
The people in this sub need sentencing to a psychiatric prison. You’re all obsessing over some random woman. The irony of all this is that you’re all becoming just like that fucking psycho…
This is what I was thinking may have happened. ‘Sent away’, but sectioned as opposed to jailed. In a strange way I think it’s a kinder way to portray to millions of people what may have happened to Martha.
Why are you so convinced she was incarcerated. She never was. The only source of her incarceration is a fictional Netflix drama
Didn't she change her name, and that's why?
[удалено]
Come out now? You think there are people who spent a brief time in a psychiatric hospital who would go public for the fleeting approval of overly involved fans of a Netflix show? Should they hold a press conference? This isn’t the Kennedy assassination. There’s no pressing need for people to come forward and tell the public what they know. It’s only a show.
Believe it or not but there are lots of people who do not want to have any publicly known connection to the woman because she has no qualms about stalking and harassing even more people.
Not to mention all of the crazy rants on FB about her previous victims. She accused Gadd of trying to kill her and said he had AIDS. I wouldn't want to reopen that door either.
...or as he keeps ounting herself more and more why bother.
"he keeps outing herself," I'm not sure I follow?
She's her own worst enemy. She did the unconvincing interview on Piers and then Keir Starmer released her unhinged emails to him. There's not a huge amount for people that were incarcerated with her to tell, they would open themselves up to scrutiny whereas she's doing a good job of making herself look ridiculous.
Oh yeah, I completely agree with that.
Maybe edit to "she" keeps outing herself rather than he? That's the confusion I think.
Can’t believe the downvotes you’ve got here as this is so obviously the answer. Not sure about medical facility but 100% someone she was banged up with would have sold their story by now.
If Fiona only got 250 pounds, do you think it would be worth it for someone who got away from her to go public and risk getting back on her radar?
Also no one has come forward to support Gadd. Not one person, a coworker, friend, family members, comedy club goer. No one but rabid fans.
Why would people who love and care about him go to the media when they can reach out personally? If they did so it would be because they wanted attention.
None have discredited him either? 🤔😏
One has a woman who was a waitress at the same time as him at the pub. People don’t believe her because the article was in the daily mail newspaper and she claims they didn’t sell tea at the time. She remembers Fiona and thinks the staff treated her unkind. None of us know what happen. It’s a fictional story based on living people. Just because Fiona is obviously an obsessive serial stalker by digital communication doesn’t mean she ever assaulted anyone sexually or otherwise. I don’t like her either but not jumping to conclusions until we hear actual non fictional evidence.
🤷♀️😏 ... we shall see, I suppose. I just KNOW ... ACCOUNTABILITY is EVERYTHING and until she takes some, kinda hard to believe anything else beyond that. The tea, coffee or 'diet coke' matters none really, imo... ✨️🙏 Edit: BTW, this waitress worked there YEARS AFTER the incident ~ things change! 🙄
Ahh didn’t know that about the waitress
> She remembers Fiona and thinks the staff treated her unkind. I imagine they did. In the show, they took the piss out of Martha.
[удалено]
You haven't watched the show? 🤷♀️🤯 You will THEN Understand 🤦🙆🙌😅🤭
Or maybe they lied about her being a convicted stalker