Member's statement: Muckamore Abbey Hospital
Member's statement by Mr Trevor Clarke on .
- MLA
- Mr Trevor Clarke
- Party at the time
- Democratic Unionist Party
- Date
- 30 September 2024
- Type
- Member's statement
- Business
- Members' Statements
- Heading
- Muckamore Abbey Hospital
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4563370
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I want to talk about the ongoing inquiry into Muckamore Abbey Hospital, which many of us are aware of. Last week, I was shocked to read that the inquiry heard that a former consultant psychiatrist and clinical director at Muckamore Abbey Hospital was "absolutely horrified" by allegations of the abuse of patients. Dr Colin Milliken described his "shock, anger and despair" at the revelations, but he said that he had never been aware of poor treatment of some patients. If my memory serves me correctly, I represented a constituent who is a resident of that establishment and was under that same doctor's care. That patient, whom I can only describe without his parents' permission, is about 6' 4" in height and was regularly brought new clothes by his family. When the family came to visit him, however, he was wearing clothes that would probably have suited someone about 5' tall. Quite often, the family would have been in contact to try to speak to their loved one in the hospital but were told that he was sleeping. On a number of occasions, we questioned the young fella's medication. With a lot of work, we contacted the hospital via his mother, who was his next of kin, but we were denied any information on the patient under Dr Milliken's care.
We were told that the young lad had capacity. We then met the young lad, got his signature, made a further submission, and, again, we were denied. Let us just say that they were very obstructive, but eventually we got that information, which proved that that young fella was on medication that was keeping him in a state that the parents had witnessed, a state that was unnecessary and could only be described as a form of abuse. To say that I was shocked last week, when I read the newspaper article on Dr Milliken's recollection, would be an understatement. Dr Milliken should have been very aware, because many of the patients under his care were abused. To keep persons dressed in inappropriate clothes is, in my book, a form of abuse. To prescribe medication to keep them in a comatose state rather than working with them is a form of abuse. All of those things happened when, if my memory serves me correctly, Dr Milliken was the said doctor. I can only hope, as the inquiry concludes, that others will give evidence to disprove the evidence given by Dr Milliken and other senior clinicians and that, whatever went on in that hospital, we come to a good conclusion, there is a just outcome for the patients who were mistreated and they and their families will get satisfaction.
447 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.06 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.73).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.06 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.97 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
| Irish language, Ulster-Scots and language policy | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:06 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.