WE'RE continuing to follow the tribulations of OAP criminal Daniel Baker.

This week we learn of his fate after standing trial for theft.

Daniel Baker had appeared in front of magistrates 59 times by the time he reached 84. We've been looking at some archives from the Shire Hall courthouse showing how, with mental health problems, he was dealt with by the justice system in 1904.

A jury determined whether Baker was fit to stand trial. It was thought that the fairest solution was for the case to be ruled upon by a jury of Baker’s peers in open court. The jury listened to the evidence given by the prison’s assistant medical officer. The judge then put the question to them.

Justice John R. P. Gooden:

Gentlemen of the jury, do you find the prisoner sane and fit to plead, or insane and not fit?

JURYMAN: Insane and not fit to plead.

Related Archive:

1. Dorset County Chronicle 30 June 1904

2. Western Chronicle, 01 July 1904

Daniel Baker and the Mental Health Act

In Daniel Baker’s case, the decision on whether he was fit to plead was made by the jury. Now, it would be at the discretion of the judge or magistrate, based on the recommendation of a team of assessors.

Forensic Psychologist Linda Bryant, Chief Executive of Together for Mental Wellbeing:

“It is very interesting that Daniel Baker only had one medical professional offer the opinion that he was insane. Nowadays if we are concerned that someone is very unwell due to their mental health, there would be an assessment under the Mental Health Act, conducted by a team of people. There would have to be at least two doctors with the right level of qualifications and approvals, plus a social worker, in order to make that assessment. The outcome can potentially be quite serious for the person as they could then be detained involuntarily under the Mental Health Act. A lot of our work is around ensuring that people get the assessments they need. If someone is assessed as having diminished responsibility – so unwell that we thought that they didn’t know what was happening and they didn't understand what had happened when they committed the offence – then we would want them to get hospital treatment as soon as possible rather than being sent to prison, for example.”

The jury found Daniel Baker not fit to plead. The chairman of the quarter sessions, Justice John R. P. Gooden, agreed with the jury’s finding. Daniel Baker had been brought to Shire Hall on a charge of stealing a shirt; instead, he was to be detained under the terms of the Criminal Lunacy Act of 1800.

Justice John R. P. Gooden: I order that the Keeper of His Majesty’s Prison at Dorchester be authorised and required to take and keep in strict custody the body of Daniel Baker until His Majesty’s pleasure concerning him shall be known.

What would become of the 84-year-old man was now a matter for the Home Office.

Shortly after his court appearance, on July 5 1904, Daniel Baker was admitted to Herrison asylum in Dorchester, the county institution for Dorset.

When Daniel Baker was admitted to the Herrison asylum, he was diagnosed with senile dementia. But, although the asylum records show he was treated for physical conditions, they show very little attention to his mental state.

*Next week we look at some of the records from Daniel Baker's time in the Herrison asylum and see how he deteriorated during his incarceration.