CAMPAIGNERS were calling today for an independent inquiry into how convicted killer Peter Bryan was able to walk out of a mental health unit and bludgeon his friend to death.
The case has caused widespread anger and anxiety.
The voodoo-inspired cannibal killer who ate the brain of one of his victims is behind bars after being told he will never be freed from custody.
The Old Bailey heard yesterday how Bryan was under the care of mental health experts - and was being assessed for a possible return to the community - when he struck in February last year.
He killed friend Brian Cherry, 43, then fried his brains in butter and ate them.
His next victim was attacked inside the Broadmoor secure mental hospital while Bryan was being assessed for the previous gruesome killing.
Within two months Bryan attacked and killed fellow patient Richard Loudwell, 59, by smashing his head on a floor. He died two months later.
Bryan had been sent to Rampton secure hospital in 1994 for beating 20-year-old shop assistant Nisha Sheth to death with a hammer, but was freed in 2001 after applying to a health review tribunal.
Conditions
Calling for an independent inquiry, Michael Howlett, director of the Zito Trust mental health charity, said the case showed that mental health services were struggling to cope with dangerous patients.
Marjorie Wallace, chief executive of the charity SANE, said the "horrific" case showed psychiatric services were being forced to take "unacceptable risks" with people's lives.
Mr Howlett said: "We're very concerned. It's an appalling case, and is another example of somebody who has been into a high-security hospital, been discharged with conditions and has gone on to kill.
"The conditions are breached and nothing happens, when what should happen is that they are returned to hospital immediately."
A Department of Health spokesman said an inquiry would take place to establish the facts of the case.
Bryan, originally from east London, pleaded guilty to the manslaughters of Mr Cherry and Richard Loudwell on the grounds of diminished responsibility.
Sentencing him to two life sentences, Judge Giles Forrester told Bryan he would never be released because he was too dangerous.
He said: "You killed on these last two occasions because it gave you a thrill and a feeling of power when you ate flesh."
Comments
Login or Register to comment
The members of the tibunal which allowed Peter Bryan to wander free after he was originally jailed for battering to death the shop assistant should be made to pay compensation to the families of the two subsequent victims. Why is it that most people in the real world have to pay the price if they do a bothced job while others just have a inquiry where "leasons will be learnt" and "no one at the time could forsee the tragic outcome" which cost millions of pounds of taxpayers money, which anyone could have told them for nowt!
the law should be changed so that "beyond hope" dangerous killers such as these are executed with a lethal-injection wiyhout further delay. there would be plenty of volunteers to "inject".
Yes, this guy is a monster and should be executed. The people who let him roam the streets should not be let off either. Surely releasing a 'lethal weapon' such as this guy onto the public streets is manslaugher???
Why is he living among other human beings? Why isn't he killed? I don't think that it's right for him to have the right to live after killing two human beings, whom deserved to live, and then eating a part of them! Why is it that if any animal had even bit a human it would be killed, but he for some reason deserves to live? His life is just a precious as any animals. He hasn't done anything that any animal hasn't, but yet an animals punishment is more harsh. Why are tax payers money going to feed an animal like this? Why does he have any more right to live as appose to an animal?