1. That psychiatrist was my Responsible Clinician (the psychiatrist responsible for my care at the Hospital). He had to give evidence at my trial.
2. He submitted, to the Crown Court, a statement to the effect I had the mental capacity to select a representative and to represent myself.
3. The only plausible explanation for his change of heart is that he could not maintain, in front of the Court, that I lacked such mental capacity:
(i). The Crown Court would have been forced to ignore his opinion. 
(ii). How could the same Court afterwards have decided, on the basis of his medical opinion, that I was mentally disordered and dangerous and sectioned me on his recommendation - which it did?
4. It was probably therefore decided the Decision in the Tribunal would have to lean on just one unexplained opinion (it had already been shown to be unlawful). It would be maintained, nevertheless, in order to prevent me from regaining control of my case.
5. The previous case before the Tribunal (in 2016), whose Decision had to be supported by lies, had probably convinced them they could not allow me to represent myself before the Tribunal.
6. The case in the Crown Court was being returned because I had been writing to authorities, pointing out the deficiencies of the process of 2015. They wanted to section me in a process that was not so flawed. So they could not declare me lacking mental capacity where, plainly, I was not and thereby render that Process unlawful from the outset.