Getty
Show Hide image

As someone with autism, I welcome politicians finally noticing suicide rates

Two thirds of adults newly diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome contemplate suicide, one study found. 

A Scottish National Party MP, Dr Lisa Cameron, has raised a little-known, but important fact – it’s that people with autism have a sky-high suicide rate. A study done by the universities of Newcastle and Coventry had stark findings. Two thirds of adults newly diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome (AS) reported having contemplated suicide, with 35 per cent of the 365 respondents saying they had planned or attempted to end their own life. 

I was diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome (now considered a part of the autistic syndrome) in 2002, at the age of 13 after experiencing a massive depression. Like many people with autism, there were some moments in my life when I was really down, up to a point where, even as a young teen, suicide seemed like an option. Because people living with autism usually have other mental health issues, this makes them really vulnerable to experience a “normal” feeling (like rejection) in a much stronger way than that experienced by non-autistic people.

I went on to study university, and now I’m trilingual. But even people like me, with autism, may not feel at ease in a “normal” social setting. As someone with high-functioning autism, I know that being aware of this is really difficult – you know that you don't always have the capacities that others take for granted. Because they have trouble in the social sphere, many people with autism are lonely – and whether you are 8 or 88, loneliness sometimes feels like a monster which eats you slowly from the inside. The unemployment and underemployment rate of people with autism does not help.

There is no easy or magic solution to reduce the suicide rate for people with autism. Better medication could help a bit, better care, therapy, and life coaching could too – but it remains the case that people with autism are handicapped in many aspects of their everyday lives. With about 1 per cent of the population in the UK living with autism, the challenges related to the condition should be mainstream. Perhaps the SNP, along with likeminded MPs from other parties, can do people with autism a service by making it so. 

BBC
Show Hide image

Can Britain’s new powers to investigate unexplained wealth prevent real-life McMafias?

The government is waking up to the fact that global criminals are fond of London. 

The BBC’s McMafia, a story of high-flying Russian mobsters and international money launderers woven into the fabric of London, ended this month. Despite the dramatic TV twists, the subject matter has its basis in reality. As a barrister dealing with cases that involve Russia and former Soviet states, my experience is that politicians and business people use the apparatus of the state to put rivals out of business by any means possible.

In McMafia, previously straight-laced fund manager Alex Godman (played by James Norton) begins transferring money under the cover of a new investment fund. With a click of a button, he can transfer a shady partner’s money around the world. As the Paradise Papers underlined, money can indeed be hidden through the use of complex company structures registered in different countries, many of which do not easily disclose the names of owners and beneficiaries. One company can be owned by another, so the owner of Company A (in Panama) might be Company B (in the Cayman Islands) which is owned by Company C (in the Seychelles) which owns property in London. To find out who owns the property, at least three separate jurisdictions must be contacted and international co-operation arranged – and that’s a simple structure. Many companies will have multiple owners, making it even more difficult to work out who the actual beneficiary is.

I represent individuals before the UK extradition and immigration courts. They are bankers, business people and politicians who have fled persecution in Russia and Ukraine or face fabricated charges in their home country and face extradition or deportation and will often be tortured or put on show trial if we lose. Their opponents will deploy spies, who may pay visits to co-defendants in Russia for “psychological work” (aka torture). Sometimes the threat of torture or ruin against a person’s family is enough to make them confess to crimes they didn’t commit. I have seen family members of my clients issued with threats of explicit violence and the implicit destruction of their life. Outside their close relatives’ homes in Russia, cars have been set on fire. Violence and intimidation are part of the creed that permeates the country’s business and political rivalries.

As in McMafia, London has long played a bit part in these rivalries, but the UK government has been slow to act. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent turned defector, was killed in London using Polonium 210 – a radioactive substance put into a cup of tea. Although Russian state involvement was suspected from the beginning, the UK government tried to block certain material being released into the public domain, leading his family to complain that the UK’s relations with Russia were being put before the truth. In 2016, a decade after his death, the inquiry finally delivered its verdict: there was a “strong probability” Litvinenko was murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. Yet in the same breath as condemning the act, David Cameron’s spokeswoman said the UK would have to “weigh carefully” the incident against “the broader need to work with Russia on certain issues”.

The government of Cameron’s successor has however been quick to use McMafia as a spring-board to publicise its new Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO). These new investigatory powers are purportedly to be used to stop the likes of Alex from hiding money from the authorities. Anyone with over £50,000 of property who is politically exposed or suspected of a serious crime, will be forced to disclose the source of their wealth on request. While most British homeowners would own more than £50,000, the individuals are likely to be high profile politicians or under investigation already by the authorities. If they fail to respond punctually, they risk forfeiting their property.

The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has long campaigned for such measures, highlighting cases such as the first family of Azerbaijan owning property in Hampstead or senior Russian politicians believed to own flats in Whitehall. Previously, confiscating hidden assets has been a lengthy and complex process: when the High Court confiscated an £11m London house belonging to a Kazakh dissident, the legal process took seven years.

The new Unexplained Wealth Orders mean that the onus is shifted to the owner of the property to prove legitimacy and the origin of the wealth. The authorities will have much greater power to investigate where finance and investment originated. But in order for them to work effectively, they will have to be backed up by expert prosecutors. The government still has a long way to go before it makes London a less attractive place to hide money.

Ben Keith is a barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill specialising in extradition, immigration, serious fraud, human rights and public law.