R -v- Juan Joseph

Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey)Order

In the Central Criminal Court

15 April 2026

Before:

Mr Justice Hilliard

Between:

R

-v-

Juan Joseph

Order made under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964

  1. On 20 March 2026, the jury found Mr Joseph not guilty by reason of insanity in respect of 5 offences. Counts 1 and 4 were allegations of making damaging disclosures of information relating to security or intelligence which had been in his possession by virtue of his position as a government contractor, contrary to section 1(3) of the Official Secrets Act 1989. Count 2 charged an offence of engaging in preparatory conduct in order to disclose protected information, contrary to section 18(1) of the National Security Act 2023. Count 3 was an allegation of disclosing protected information, contrary to section 1(1) of the National Security Act 2023. Count 5 charged an offence of having a bladed article. The dates of the various acts were between 19 November 2024 and 30 January 2025. It is agreed that he did do the various acts alleged against him but he did not have a guilty mind. He did not know that what he was doing was wrong because of his mental illness.
  2. The acts arose out of Mr Joseph’s work as a contractor for MI5. It is clear that whilst he was so employed, he began to show signs of mental illness. His contract was terminated in 2020. Thereafter, his mental health became worse. It could not be satisfactorily treated in the community and he was admitted to hospital in August 2022. He had previously made similar disclosures to the disclosures made in this case but he was not prosecuted for those disclosures for public interest reasons. He was diagnosed in hospital with psychotic illness. After he was released, he took his medication for a time but then stopped and his condition deteriorated. Again, it is clear that mental health services in the community were not in a position to ensure that he received the treatment he needed.
  3. It is now agreed on all sides that at the time of these allegations, he was suffering with paranoid schizophrenia. So as to protect national security, it is not in the public interest to say what protected information was disclosed by him or to whom but it is accepted by the prosecution, and the jury found, that he was so unwell that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. So far as the bladed article is concerned, it is agreed that he believed he was entitled to have it as part of his work for MI5 when the true position was that his contract had been terminated long before.
  4. I am now required to make an order under section 5 of the Criminal Procedure (Insanity) Act 1964. There are three possible orders. It is agreed that a hospital order is the most appropriate one. No question of punishment arises. I accept that Mr Joseph would not have done what he did if he had not been mentally ill. But if his particular mental illness is not treated effectively and his condition deteriorates, I am sure that there is a very obvious risk that similar conduct could be repeated and the consequences for national security and for particular individuals could be very serious indeed.
  5. I have reports from 4 psychiatrists. They are Dr Nabi who is at Broadmoor where Mr Joseph has been since 4 August 2025; Dr Bacon for the prosecution; and Dr Kahtan and Dr Kavuma for the defence. Dr Nabi says that the conditions for a hospital order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act are met. He still holds some delusional beliefs and there is an ongoing lack of insight. Dr Nabi says that there is a grave and imminent risk to national security when he is unwell and a section 41 Restriction Order is necessary so as best to manage his risk in hospital and upon eventual discharge. The Restriction Order would mean that he would be liable to immediate recall if any release conditions are broken or upon any sign of relapse.
  6. Like the other experts, Dr Bacon is satisfied, as am I, that the conditions for a hospital order are met and that his mental disorder warrants ongoing treatment in hospital. She also recommends the imposition of a Restriction Order because he will always be at risk of being ill again in the future and in her view a Restriction Order is the best way of protecting the public from any repetition of what happened here.
  7. Dr Kavuma also says that a hospital order is the appropriate order. He has had regard, as have I, to Mr Joseph’s antecedents, the nature of the allegations and the likelihood of repetition if he is at large. As to the latter, Dr Kavuma says that he shows a profound lack of insight and he too considers that a Restriction Order is necessary for reasons he gives in his report in order to protect the public from serious harm. Mr Joseph told Dr Kavuma that if he had a choice, he would stop taking his medication and switch to psychology; he thought he was well enough to be discharged. In Dr Kavuma’s view, a Restriction Order means that he will get the best treatment that he needs now and will ensure that the best arrangements for public protection can be made if discharge is being considered. He thought that there had been times in the past when Mr Joseph had been able to conceal / mask the true extent of his illness.
  8. Dr Kahtan also recommended a hospital order with a Restriction Order, although he has not written any update for today’s hearing.
  9. I am satisfied that the most appropriate order to make is an order under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The doctors are approved under section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and on the basis of what they say, Mr Joseph undoubtedly suffers from a mental disorder of a nature and degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in hospital for medical treatment, and that treatment is immediately available at Broadmoor Hospital where a place is ready for him. I have taken account of everything I know about Mr Joseph and the acts which he carried out. This order is not as a punishment but for his own well-being. So the order is a hospital order, the hospital being Broadmoor Hospital. It is agreed on his behalf that a hospital order should be made.
  10. In addition, I have heard oral evidence from Dr Nabi and from Dr Kavuma. They explained why they thought that a Restriction Order was necessary to protect the public from serious harm. They each agreed with each other’s evidence. Dr Bacon agreed with what they had both said. I regard the additional involvement of the Ministry of Justice and of the Secretary of State in the event of a Restriction Order in the ways they indicated as being important so as to ensure the best possible scrutiny in this case, given that the risk extends to nothing less than national security. I have considered the possibility of a Community Treatment Order on release from a section 37 order without a Restriction Order. The focus of a CTO would I think be more directed towards Mr Joseph’s mental health than to public protection. Dr Kavuma thought it might be difficult, for example, to impose a prohibition on the use of email for reasons of Mr Joseph’s mental health whereas it might be very important as a protective measure to reduce the risk of disclosure. Above all, if conditions were broken on release whilst subject to a Restriction Order, recall could be immediate. Breach of a CTO requires written notice and a request to return to hospital within 72 hours. The possibility of lapse or discharge of a CTO does not exist with a Restriction Order. Following release from a section 37 order, there would only be a possibility of inter-agency co-operation and oversight. This would be inevitable under the MAPPA (multi-agency arrangements) following release under a section 41 order. Given the nature of the risk here, I think that MAPPA would be of considerable value as regards public protection.
  11. I have taken account of the nature of what he has done, the history of his mental illness and the risk of repetition of similar acts to those which gave rise to the charges here. The defence do not accept that a Restriction Order is necessary. They argue that it is excessive. Having given the matter careful consideration, I am sure that a section 41 order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm, and it is not possible to say for how long the need will exist. Accordingly, Mr Joseph will be subject to the special restrictions set out in Section 41.
  12. The serious harm to the public consists of a risk of serious harm to national security (from further disclosure if unwell and in a position to do so) which would affect the public at large, and also of a risk of serious physical harm to individual members of the public if disclosures were made, and to individuals if Mr Joseph thought in a deluded state that he needed to use violence. I have looked at the degree of risk and the degree of serious harm that could result. I am sure that there is a very significant risk of very serious harm. I have taken account of the fluctuating nature of the illness. It can appear to be controlled but then quickly spiral out of control if, for example, Mr Joseph did not comply with treatment in the community. The illness is a very severe one. Accompanying delusions are extreme and pervasive. The serious harm could be caused very rapidly indeed, comfortably within 72 hours. He could, for example, easily leave the country in that time. The greatest care is needed before concluding that he could be safely managed in the community. Community care has failed before. His delusions have extended to those working with him in the community. He stopped taking his medication. There is a history of a lack of insight which inevitably affects whether he would continue voluntarily with treatment. His illness is likely to persist for the rest of his life. Dr Nabi and Dr Kavuma have explained the much more rigorous conditions for release and for management in the community if a Restriction Order is in place. In particular, I think that the power under section 41 for immediate recall to hospital if there is any deterioration, disengagement or concerns will markedly reduce his ability to do anything which could cause serious harm to the public. I have kept well in mind that Mr Joseph has no criminal convictions of any kind but for the reasons I have given, I am sure that a Restriction Order is necessary to protect the public from serious harm. I am sure that all four doctors are right to reach the same conclusion about this. I have had regard to the overall tenor of the evidence they have given on this issue. In my judgment, they have made a very compelling case which I accept for the imposition of a Restriction Order.