AN activities co-ordinator at the Orchard House mental-health centre took patients out without risk assessments – one of whom later injured a States police officer.
Jeanette Mash removed patients from the building in March 2022, trying again on 20 September that year when she was prevented by a senior staff nurse who advised her that they first needed to be risk-assessed.
A day later she removed three patients, two of whom had been detained under mental-health legislation and the third subject to a “significant restriction of liberty order”.
It was one of these patients who injured a police officer.
The incident resulted in an instruction from the acting ward manager not to take out any further patients, a direction repeated at a supervision meeting the same day. However, on 3 October, Ms Mash took another patient out of the centre, and when questioned by her superiors and reminded of the restrictions, she replied: “I kind of forgot.” The following day she was issued with a letter of suspension and, after an investigation, summarily dismissed.
The Employment Tribunal has since dismissed Ms Mash’s claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal, according to a recent judgment.
Panel deputy chair Advocate Ian Jones said that while Ms Mash has said that “one of the reasons she was pursuing her claim was because someone had to shine the proverbial light on the problems in Jersey with the provision of care for those with mental health difficulties”, there was no evidence of any systematic failings, and that the claim was of little relevance to her case.
Reviewing the evidence, Advocate Jones said that while it was possible that Ms Mash had not initially been entirely clear as to the “do’s and don’ts of taking patients out”, all possible ambiguity was removed when she was told unequivocally not to take patients out.
“In my view it was self-evidently reasonable for the [SEB] to view the conduct of Ms Mash to be capable of amounting to gross misconduct.
“It is also correct to note that [it] formed this view after a comprehensive investigation and then a disciplinary hearing prior to making a final decision.
“Having considered all of the evidence and for the reasons as set out herein, I have very little hesitation in finding in favour of [the SEB]. In my judgment [it] was not only entitled to but also correct to dismiss Ms Mash, summarily and without notice, in the circumstances as I have found them to be. I accordingly dismiss Ms Mash’s claims,” he said.
