104 replies to this topic

[crunchybits]

The officers involved shouldn't have used force, it's as simple as that.

This debate appears to be more about whether or not the level of force was unlawful; which I don't think was disproportionate if they had (which they evidently didn't) the lawful authority to detain him.

Remember this boy wasn't arrested, he was detained. The latter is unlawful.

So we have a person of diminished mental capacity in a swimming pool when they can't swim. Talk about a time critical high risk situation. Sir Robert Nelson, mentioned although the officers attending the incident were acting as they genuinely thought best, their responses were “more than-hasty and ill-informed”. The carer clearly couldn't cope, the pool lifeguard couldn't cope so the police were called. Perhaps the police should have stayed back and let him splash around in the pool to his heart's content but perhaps this was a factor in their decision making process. HSE issues pool safety advice following double drowning case in police swimming pool http://www.hse.gov.u...2007/e07026.htm

I hope HSE are taking note and fully expect a prosecution of the carer's in this case. There is clearly some learning to be drawn from this

[Rocket]

I haven't had the time to read all the comments here yet. However I think rather than suing the police what people have to realise is that when you call the police you call the police. What I mean by that is you aren't phoning for an emergency social worker you're phoning for a police officer who will deal with the situation as a police officer will. Now if he's got the mental capability for a 5 year old then I very much doubt that he understands the dangers of the water which I would argue is demonstrated by going into it whilst fully clothed. It would also appear that he would not have been able to swim judging by the scenario, since he had been watching rather than participating. So a non-swimmer in the pool, fully clothed who is 16 and has the mental age of a five year old. It doesn't seem like that is going end particularly well whatever happens. Now others have failed to deal with him verbally and when words run out you don't have that many other options. Was it a police officer who got him out of the pool? So he gets pulled out for his safety, presumably he keeps trying to re-enter the water so they restrain him to prevent him from doing so. What I want to know is what position the Met would be in if he had died because officers refused to act for fear of this sort of thing happening. What a stupid decision.

One thing I have to say there is that just because he has autism does not mean he is stupid and does not understand danger or can't swim.

Autism is to me, a 'black and white, single minded, blinkered vision of an idea or a task that must be achieved'. (Again, I have no official training on this - just experience and google search).

The young person I had dealings with who was autistic was half the age of the subject of this topic and yet he was one of my best competition swimmers, He always turned up for the events and I knew that he would always do his absolute best to win,

[callsign-kid]

One thing I have to say there is that just because he has autism does not mean he is stupid and does not understand danger or can't swim.

Autism is to me, a 'black and white, single minded, blinkered vision of an idea or a task that must be achieved'. (Again, I have no official training on this - just experience and google search).

The young person I had dealings with who was autistic was half the age of the subject of this topic and yet he was one of my best competition swimmers, He always turned up for the events and I knew that he would always do his absolute best to win,

I know that, many autistic people are also very clever. However the articles which I have read suggest that he has/had at the time a mental age of 5. Whether that is because of his autism or for some other reason I wouldn't know. I would think that the average 5 year old doesn't really understand or appreciate the dangers of being near/in a body of water. It would appear that he was a non-swimmer again judging from the article. I'm not saying if you're autistic you can't swim but the fact he was observing and did not partaking would suggest to me he had never learned to swim for one reason or another although I may be wrong there.

[MacGregor]

Was it a police officer who got him out of the pool?

You might wish to read the article, it details who removed him from the pool and it also stated the person in question couldn't swim.

ZH was moved to the shallow end and lifted out by lifeguards

[candles]

So we have a person of diminished mental capacity in a swimming pool when they can't swim. Talk about a time critical high risk situation. Sir Robert Nelson, mentioned although the officers attending the incident were acting as they genuinely thought best, their responses were "more than-hasty and ill-informed".

It appears the news report has been updated with more information...

This is a genuine request; I wish the judge was presented with the proper way in dealing with this extremely high risk situation, just so it can be publicised. Because I do not want to find my actions being questioned in court if there was a proper way of doing this.

I am still at a loss to see why his disability was causing him to be discriminated against? You can't just ignore the fact that this child did not have the understanding of the danger he was in... If you were to ignore it, then I can understand the discrimination. Just as if you were to ignore the fact that someone in a wheelchair requires accessability considerations in a business premises.

I am sure the commisioner is actually looking out for the public as a whole on this issue - Because I can see members of public potentially being put at risk because officers are looking on this and, rightly, questioning whether they should get involved.

[rosco]

Perhaps your right, i am beginning to question the actual role and purpose of a police officer,

This is the oath that we all swear to become officers:

" I . . . . . of . . . . . do solemnly and sincerely
declare and affirm that I will well and truly serve the
Queen in the office of constable, with fairness,
integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding
fundamental human rights and according equal respect to
all people; and that I will, to the best of my power,
cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all
offences against people and property; and that while I
continue to hold the said office I will, to the best of my
skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof
faithfully according to law."

Reading the second article, it does say that he was there to watch the swimmers only, but then went to the waters edge. So he wasn't there to swim and one can presume went into the water at some time to get soaked as later described.

On the articles presented, I must admit I cannot see either why staff there could not have dealt and taken the person out themselves (presumably your fellow lifeguards were not so good at restraining this person after all), as permission presumably would have been withdrawn for the youth to stay.

I would guess that common law "protect life" would have been the power used to justify the force. I am not sure if S.136 would be applicable in a swimming pool, i.e. would it be a public place? Maybe if the officers tried to apply that, and the judges ruled that it was not a public place, that would justify the unlawful detention.

There's not really enough details to come to a conclusion though on the basis the judgement was made - from my experience, I'd certainly not imagine that the officers would have set out to unlawfully discriminate or detain someone, but were doing what they though best at the time.

It certainly does seem an example of society expecting the Police to pick up all sorts of roles that it is not trained for though, but is only going to get worse as the country cuts back on other social services I fear.

[Rocket]

It appears the news report has been updated with more information...

This is a genuine request; I wish the judge was presented with the proper way in dealing with this extremely high risk situation, just so it can be publicised. Because I do not want to find my actions being questioned in court if there was a proper way of doing this.

I am still at a loss to see why his disability was causing him to be discriminated against? You can't just ignore the fact that this child did not have the understanding of the danger he was in... If you were to ignore it, then I can understand the discrimination. Just as if you were to ignore the fact that someone in a wheelchair requires accessability considerations in a business premises.

I am sure the commisioner is actually looking out for the public as a whole on this issue - Because I can see members of public potentially being put at risk because officers are looking on this and, rightly, questioning whether they should get involved.

To be fair, we could only discuss this on the information given in the original article as posted by the BBC, and from what I gleaned in post #6.

Now, instead of just watching other swimmers in the pool, he was actually in a 'familiarisation' session with 4 other pupils at the pool so there is indeed more to this than was first divulged and no doubt more to come.

[MacGregor]

On the articles presented, I must admit I cannot see either why staff there could not have dealt and taken the person out themselves (presumably your fellow lifeguards were not so good at restraining this person after all), as permission presumably would have been withdrawn for the youth to stay.

Why would lifeguards be any good at restraining somebody? I certainly never had any input on how to restrain people whilst doing my NPLQ.

[bensonby]

Is the judgement in this case available online anywhere. It doesn't appear to be on bailii. I'm not forming an opinion based on one news report. I will, however, comment in more general terms at how the police seem to be ever increasingly called to things that aren't our jobs because those who are actually responsible are unwilling to take action.

[Burnie]

Why would lifeguards be any good at restraining somebody? I certainly never had any input on how to restrain people whilst doing my NPLQ.

You arent thinking outside the box - Spineboard them...

[bensonby]

My Mum works with lots of young autistic adults and it really isn't as easy to "control" these young people as you might imagine. She's five foot five and considerably smaller than most of the people she works with so doesn't really have a hope in hell if they kick off. She was a police officer for 15/16 years so has a pretty good understanding of the way things should be dealt with but sometimes the only option is to leave it to people who have the powers, training and equipment to deal with this sort of thing.

Further to these points and further to my point that it really isn't the police's remit:

The various teachers/carers employers have a duty of care to their staff to give adequate training, provide adequate resources and staffing levels to ensure that the people they are dealing with can be properly controlled safely. This clearly didn't happen here. Ultimately, they have to shoulder a great deal of responsibility.

Police have no extra legal powers (and by the looks of it inadequate training) in scenarios like this: this appears to have been Bourne out by the judgement that seems to indicate that the police had no power to detain/restrain him.

As no offence was apparently committed then this seems to fall squarely in the remit of those charged to care for this boy. If they are unwilling to do so then the ultimate blame in this scenario seems to rest with them. They have the same
Common-law and statutory powers to use force to prevent the person from hurting themselves or others etc. and have a greater awareness of the disability and how the individual
Can be "talked down" etc.

Issues like this: with other agencies failing to adequately deal with issues and then dumping them at the feet of the police really really annoys me. And when I become a duty
Officer I fully intend on telling plenty of people to "jog on" and not send anyone. It is unacceptable that many people seem to honk they can "tell the police" and then their risk assessment is satisfied and they are absolved of responsibility.

[rosco]

Why would lifeguards be any good at restraining somebody? I certainly never had any input on how to restrain people whilst doing my NPLQ.

Apparently they are when they work as a team, according to post #34.

[Stratos]

Full story:

http://www.judiciary...r-of-police.pdf

Notable points I picked up:

• 2 carers went back to the school with the other students, leafing ZH and another carer alone at the swimming baths
• Lifeguards felt the remaining carer was ineffectual in getting ZH to move away from the pool, where he was standing for at least half an hour
• A lifeguard gave misleading information to the 999 operator that ZH was aggressive
• The original 2 officers on scene briefly spoke to the carers. One officer touched him lightly, unaware that this was the wrong thing to do, and he ended up jumping into the pool. It's disputed whether the officer directly caused him to jump.
• Lifeguards removed ZH from pool by force, forming a "cordon" before carrying him by his arms and legs and passing him to police. By this time another 2 PCs and a Sgt had arrived.
• ZH was restrained with 2 pairs of handcuffs and leg restraints before being placed in a caged van. He was then seen by ambulance and returned to his carers.

It seems to be the case that force became necessary, however not enough may have been done to coax ZH out of the pool, which he may or may not have done through his own free will if given enough time. Once lifeguards tried to remove him from the pool he started "thrashing" and it became necessary for his own safety and the safety of members of public present to restrain him. One bystander commented that police could have released him after they got him out of the pool, even if it meant he would injure himself, as he was becoming very distressed at being restrained, but this wasn't done at the time and there's nothing to say he wouldn't simply have jumped back into the pool again if police released him.

Edited by Stratos, 14 March 2012 - 11:15 PM.

[MerseyLLB]

isnt the point being missed ? its not removing him from the baths thats at issue, its handucuffing and tieing the feet together of a mentaly handicaped child and then locking him soaking wet in a cage with no lawful excuse whatso ever. the mentaly handicaped have the same rights as everyone else

Mentally handicapped or not, if the level of force offered by the male was high enough to warrant restraints then I don't see the problem.

Also with regard to the officers 'spotting the signs of autism'...the police by their nature when attending non-crime incidents are jacks of all trade yet masters of none (except core policing skills). Unless every single police officer were to take a full paramedics course, a full firemans course, a rescue course, a psychiatric nurses course, a coastguards course, martial arts to black belt level etc how can they possibly be expected to be experts in every eventuality they come across.

I agree also with an earlier poster who stated that there needs to be a change in the way these cases are handled. You cannot say 'The officers were wrong' without offering guidance of how to be 'right'. The less the police are supported in this type of incident the less likely they are to get involved.

[MerseyLLB]

restraining him from doing what ? you cant restrain people at random who are not and are not suspected of committed an offence. thats the whole point , he was free to leave

He was distressed and had just been rescued from the water for his safety. I think they could have quite reasonably on the face of matters detained the lad under s136. Once he was calmed down and not at risk he was released back to his carers. Maybe the police's actions were not best practice and there could be lessons to learn, however I think it is a huge leap to call them criminal and a breach of human rights.

[Stratos]

restraining him from doing what ? you cant restrain people at random who are not and are not suspected of committed an offence. thats the whole point , he was free to leave

My post above explains why it became necessary to restrain him. The situation was handled badly due to a number of factors and these contributed to the escalation of the situation, eventually resulting in it being necessary to use force.

Also, you can restrain someone who hasn't committed an offence. Section 3 Criminal Law Act allows force to be used to prevent crime before it happens, and there are also common law powers and powers under S117 PACE depending on circumstances.

[candles]

has any one called them criminal ?

yes they could under 136, (if the criteria was reached, which i doubt, he isnt mad he is handicaped, does it allow to detention with out charge of the handicaped ?) but they didnt which is why its a breach of HR

saying they could have done better, is a shade of an understatment

Oh ok, section 136 only applies to "mad" people...

• Lifeguards removed ZH from pool by force, forming a "cordon" before carrying him by his arms and legs and passing him to police. By this time another 2 PCs and a Sgt had arrived.
• ZH was restrained with 2 pairs of handcuffs and leg restraints before being placed in a caged van. He was then seen by ambulance and returned to his carers.

So, it sounds like officers had detained the individual after lifeguards had used force as their teamwork allowed for them to remove ZH from the pool. He was detained long enough by officers for a medical professional to arrive and assess ZH - at which point, he must've calmed down enough to have the restraints removed and returned to the carer.

So, duespaid, how should this situation have played out? - I think everyone has done enough critising, how about some concrete and constructive suggestions...?

[Law_Grad]

Playing devils advocate:

But if an Alzheimer’s sufferer took a turn and went paddling or swimming inappropriately, then how would you deal with them after hoisting them out of the pool?


And I can’t help but think that’s the issue here, the mischief being akin to a potential breach of the peace or disturbance, but due to inability of the primary actor / actors involved, it’s not so much arrests and legislation but what’s done after the mischief has been addressed.


Yes, you could spin the back of the police van as a place of safety or time out step, but you can also see it for what it is, and the start of criminal justice system being set in motion – which if we return to out Alzheimer’s example, and pardon the pun, but it wouldn’t really hold water.

[Stratos]

no it doesnt, the removal from the pool was done by council staff, the police could have removed from the building as a tresspassor, , restaint to do that might have been reasonable, they had no right to imprison him in a van, did they

section 3 requires you to have a crime in mind that you have RB is about to be committed, its not cart blance you restrain people who are getting on your nerves

Getting on their nerves?

Have you even read the link provided?

[Law_Grad]

Playing devils advocate again, and as the Criminal Law Act and s.3 has been mentioned:

It reminds me of a legal conundrum…


Where you find yourself in a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane, and see one of the in-patients committing acts of wanton violence against a third party.

And leaving the moral argument aside, about your fellow man being beaten to a pulp before you – what protection, if any, would s.3 offer?

Bearing in mind the need for mental capability to stand trial and being held responsible for crimes, and with this being a psychiatric hospital for the criminally insane.

[rosco]

no it doesnt, the removal from the pool was done by council staff, the police could have removed from the building as a tresspassor, , restaint to do that might have been reasonable, they had no right to imprison him in a van, did they

section 3 requires you to have a crime in mind that you have RB is about to be committed, its not cart blance you restrain people who are getting on your nerves

You are on the right lines yes. I don't see how S3 could have been applied here, and, having just read it all the judgement too made the point that there was no reason to imprison the lad in the van when there were other places that could have been used more conveniently.

Overall, the police action seems to have been hasty and ill considered, and precipitated the jump into the water. Opportunities to stand back and think before acting were missed it appears.

[candles]

But if an Alzheimer's sufferer took a turn and went paddling or swimming inappropriately, then how would you deal with them after hoisting them out of the pool?

What do you mean inappropriately? If he could swim and was, quite reasonably, swimming in the pool at no risk to himself or others, then there is no need to hoist them out of the pool. If by means of this mental disorder, that they are being a danger to themselves or another person in a public place, then it would be reasonable to expect that this person should be assessed as soon as practicable by means of detention and transfer to a place of safety or a medical professional attends the location of the detained individual... Is it not??

[Onlyme2008]

With all the different people turning up, will have made the whole thing worse, this young man will not have liked all these different people approching him, they find change very hard to deal with.

Lifeguards felt the remaining carer was ineffectual in getting ZH to move away from the pool, where he was standing for at least half an hour


Why did it matter he had been standing there for half hour, so for the sake of time the whole thing turns to s88t!!

[candles]

are you classing a para medic as a medical profesional ? im sure that doesnt count for a mental health assessment

I assume you mean an AMHP (Approved Mental Health Professional)... then no, I don't believe a paramedic is an AMHP.

Like I said, you've done a heck of a lot of criticising, have you any positive, constructive suggestions? It is all to easy to say how things were done incorrectly with the benefit of hindsight...

[Law_Grad]

What do you mean inappropriately? If he could swim and was, quite reasonably, swimming in the pool at no risk to himself or others, then there is no need to hoist them out of the pool. If by means of this mental disorder, that they are being a danger to themselves or another person in a public place, then it would be reasonable to expect that this person should be assessed as soon as practicable by means of detention and transfer to a place of safety or a medical professional attends the location of the detained individual... Is it not??

I see that your two options both lack handcuffs & leg restraints.

So why would the same scenario with an Alzheimer’s sufferer not necessitate the need for those items, yet this event does.


Because it’s clear from my comments, and despite the way in which you responded, the only difference was in the affected person paddling in the pool.


Is it age? Is it the type of illness that affects mental ability and cognitive skills? Is it the hackneyed and stereotype comments about strength that accompanies certain mental / personality disorders?

Or perhaps, is it just the fact you want to ignore the obvious – that this wasn’t a situation that warranted arrest and criminal sanctions but a solution to address a mischief, and once that mischief was addressed care & compassion should have been used, as opposed to handcuffs, leg restraints and the cages of a van.