104 replies to this topic

[candles]

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.

I think that comment was a little hasty... There is no evidence to suggest that anyone came wading in and precipitated the jump... Certainly, of the account we have, it is also possible that the carer didn't know or pass on this information to the officers when spoken to.

[candles]

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.

I think I was clear in my post, but maybe not!

The condition or lack of condition of the individual is irrelevent - if, for whatever reason, the individual is potentially putting themselves or others in danger, then that dictates the way in which you initially respond. Clearly if someone has disabilities that renders them more susceptable to further injury, then this will also factor into your level of response. Not doing so would be irresponsible, would it not?

to be fair to me and the court judgements its very difficult to find any positives in this, other than his father had the means to take it to court and compo for the ordeal will be paid, proving we are not operating on the basis that the handicaped have no HR

I am not asking for positives, I am asking you for suggestions on how this should have been dealt with, given the information we have currently.

[Onlyme2008]

I think I was clear in my post, but maybe not!

The condition or lack of condition of the individual is irrelevent - if, for whatever reason, the individual is potentially putting themselves or others in danger, then that dictates the way in which you initially respond. Clearly if someone has disabilities that renders them more susceptable to further injury, then this will also factor into your level of response. Not doing so would be irresponsible, would it not?


I am not asking for positives, I am asking you for suggestions on how this should have been dealt with, given the information we have currently.

What should have happened the police should never have been called, he should have been left looking at the pool, with the only carer taken her time to get him away, no matter how long that took.

[candles]

What should have happened the police should never have been called, he should have been left looking at the pool, with the only carer taken her time to get him away, no matter how long that took.

Good point and sounds reasonable...This for me, is still the most reasonable course of action. Especially as the information given to police from the outset (the 999 call) was potentially, at best, incorrect...

Edited by candles, 15 March 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[Stratos]

It was bound to be a very difficult situation - the pool staff wanted him away from the pool and expected the police to take action. The carers didn't act on their own initiative to try to advise the police officers, and failed to suggest using a physical control technique that had previously been used by school staff effectively (linking arms and escorting him that way).

There have been failures by all involved, however no amount of training or even having the benefit of hindsight can prevent every situation like this. It's possible that everyone involved could have acted ideally and it still wouldn't have gone smoothly. It's a sad fact that there are mentally ill people out there and sometimes situations like these will happen.

What should have happened the police should never have been called, he should have been left looking at the pool, with the only carer taken her time to get him away, no matter how long that took.

Sounds about right.

Edited by Stratos, 15 March 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[Onlyme2008]

Good point and sounds reasonable...This for me, is still the most reasonable course of action. Especially as the information given to police from the outset (the 999 call) was potentially, at best, incorrect...

If a phone call had to made, should have been mother/farther, he needed people he knew to approch him, has part of the condition is they worry about change, even small change.

[candles]

and as the police were called, shouldnt he still have been left there for as long as it took, the only ''crime'' being committed was one of tresspass, why would the police intervence at all ?

we've answered this for you in previous posts.

[Onlyme2008]

and as the police were called, shouldnt he still have been left there for as long as it took, the only ''crime'' being committed was one of tresspass, why would the police intervence at all ?

Lack of info, so never knew what they were really dealing with.

[candles]

he wasnt mentaly ill, he was handicaped, i

Autism itself is not** considered a mental illness under the MHA, but it doesn't mean that someone with Autism cannot suffer from a Mental illness...

** This is wrong, please see below....

Edited by candles, 15 March 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[Onlyme2008]

The bottom line here, is a number of small things to you and me, but massive to this young man, came a long, and turned into one huge mess, which no one involved set to do.

[Stratos]

he wasnt mentaly ill, he was handicaped, i

If we're going to be pedantic, he has a pervasive developmental disorder, a mental illness - ergo he is mentally ill. Handicap is an umbrella term that refers to disabilities in general, so you could also accurately describe him as disabled or handicapped if you liked.

Unless you're actually arguing that autism isn't a mental illness?

[candles]

no you havent ? its the first time ive asked the question

You've been asking (indirectly) why are the police involved and asserting that the police had no power to do so... To which you got plenty of replies.

you have a tresspasser and a carer its not hard to find out, lets say it was a potential suicied, its still not a good idea to approached them and touch

The account seems to suggest that the carers were consulted, albeit briefly... This is where the information should have been given.

Unless you're actually arguing that autism isn't a mental illness?

Ignore my previous post, according to the National Autistic Society's link to the Department of Health Mental Health Act Code of Practice;

The Act’s definition of mental disorder includes the full range of autistic spectrum disorders, including those existing alongside a learning disability or any other kind of mental disorder. While it is possible for someone on the autistic spectrum to meet the conditions for treatment under the Act without having any other form of mental disorder, even if it is not associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible behaviour, this is likely to happen only very rarely. Compulsory treatment in a hospital setting is rarely likely to be helpful for a person with autism, who may be very distressed by even minor changes in routine and is likely to find detention in hospital anxiety provoking. Sensitive, person-centred support in a familiar setting will usually be more helpful. Wherever possible, less restrictive alternative ways of providing the treatment or support a person needs should be found.

Apologies, I was reading old material (from 2005).

[-AJ]

I think that everybody is missing the point here. The force the officers used was illegal because they didn't have a legal right to do what they were doing, hence the false imprisonment.

Surely protecting life - indeed by force if they feared he'd jump in and drown? So i think they could legally restrain him.

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act

There are occasions when the Police may act if they believe that someone is suffering from a mental illness and is in need of immediate treatment or care.

Their powers for such occasions are set out in Section 136 of the Mental Health Act.

This gives them the authority to take a person from a public place to a “Place of Safety”, either for their own protection or for the protection of others, so that their immediate needs can be properly assessed.

He's not mentally ill I hear you shout - but to a Police officer he may 'appear' as such. And as such he has power under section 136 to take a person to a place of safety. that place of safety could be the rear of the police van to stop him drowning himself. Surely.

[candles]

about time you went on the equal ops course
of course its not an'' iltness, its not even a condition, its a sydrome, your just trying to stigmatise it, to try and find some reason to excuse what went on here

Just before that, you are coming across like you know the answer to the following question;

Can you define and also explain the difference between the following mental health terms and their meanings under the MHA;

• Disorder
• Illness
• Syndrome
• Condition

I will also refer you to the quote from the DH CoP regarding the MHA...

[bensonby]

I've read the judgement and find no evidence to suggest that the police acted in nothin other than good faith: but the judge makes clear that that isn't enough. I find the Mental Capacity Act analysis a bit obtuse and the impression is that had they made more consultations with the carers and still decided on the same course of action the their actions may have been lawful(?)

I take the point that the van may not have been the best place to take him. But, again, I wonder if the terms of reference in the case had been looked at under the terms of civil trespass? Again, I doubt it woul have been appropriate to put the boy in a van: unless it was to detain him under the MCA in order to be seen by an ambulance.

Who does come across really badly, in my eyes, is the carers. Why did they not offer advice to the police? Why did they allow the situation to develop? Why did they not take charge of the situation and solve it? They have exactly the same powers as the police or anyone else in this situation. Im afraid the "I can't go hands on" argument does not wash withe for reasons I've already pointed out. As it didn't seem to wash with an officer on scene!

Ultimately this was not a police call.

Ultimately, police actions were wrong - despite the best of intentions. I hope none of the officers get prosecuted or stuck on. The carers failed the boy massively too.

£28k is still a ridiculous sum of money though.

[candles]

I've read the judgement and find no evidence to suggest that the police acted in nothin other than good faith: but the judge makes clear that that isn't enough. I find the Mental Capacity Act analysis a bit obtuse and the impression is that had they made more consultations with the carers and still decided on the same course of action the their actions may have been lawful(?)

I take the point that the van may not have been the best place to take him. But, again, I wonder if the terms of reference in the case had been looked at under the terms of civil trespass? Again, I doubt it woul have been appropriate to put the boy in a van: unless it was to detain him under the MCA in order to be seen by an ambulance.

Who does come across really badly, in my eyes, is the carers. Why did they not offer advice to the police? Why did they allow the situation to develop? Why did they not take charge of the situation and solve it? They have exactly the same powers as the police or anyone else in this situation. Im afraid the "I can't go hands on" argument does not wash withe for reasons I've already pointed out. As it didn't seem to wash with an officer on scene!

Ultimately this was not a police call.

Ultimately, police actions were wrong - despite the best of intentions. I hope none of the officers get prosecuted or stuck on. The carers failed the boy massively too.

£28k is still a ridiculous sum of money though.

I agree, however, I can understand why they don't get hands on because they find themselves being prosecuted in this litigation culture we are adopting - In a very similar vain, I suspect police services will now be advised not to get involved, in case they are sued - until someone dies and then the cycle goes round again...

[candles]

Having read the judgement in full and is well worth the read; I can certainly say I have learnt quite a bit about a number of subjects, namely the MCA, autism and the reaffirmation of the need to continually assess the perceived emergency portrayed to police initially by the caller.

[crunchybits]

S136 does allow you to go 'hands on' with a person who has autism in limited circumstances. Someone with a learning disability and no other form of mental disorder
may not be detained for the treatment or made subject to guardianship or supervised
community treatment under the MHA unless their learning disability is accompanied by abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on their part.

Reading between the lines the finding turns on the last part of that statement. I feel really sorry for the family since it appears several organisations have let them down.

Lots more investigation on my part on this one - I have dealt with autistic spectrum disorders before which fell under the first part 'abnormally aggressive'. And then got to know the individual really well - lovely person too - some cases stick with you.

[Stratos]

about time you went on the equal ops course
of course its not an'' iltness, its not even a condition, its a sydrome, your just trying to stigmatise it, to try and find some reason to excuse what went on here

It's defined, medically, as exactly what I said. If you don't like that then ask the professionals to change it. I'm not "excusing" what went on as you can clearly see from the post you replied to:

It was bound to be a very difficult situation - the pool staff wanted him away from the pool and expected the police to take action. The carers didn't act on their own initiative to try to advise the police officers, and failed to suggest using a physical control technique that had previously been used by school staff effectively (linking arms and escorting him that way).

There have been failures by all involved, however no amount of training or even having the benefit of hindsight can prevent every situation like this. It's possible that everyone involved could have acted ideally and it still wouldn't have gone smoothly. It's a sad fact that there are mentally ill people out there and sometimes situations like these will happen.

Nothing in my post above is my opinion, it is observable and documented fact from the case itself. I clearly stated that there were failures by all involved and you chose to ignore all that and argue with the medical definition of what autism is. If you want to call it something different to everybody else then so be it but what I said still stands.

Edited by Stratos, 15 March 2012 - 01:37 PM.

[rosco]

I think that comment was a little hasty... There is no evidence to suggest that anyone came wading in and precipitated the jump... Certainly, of the account we have, it is also possible that the carer didn't know or pass on this information to the officers when spoken to.

Actually it was not: I read the report (and I see from your later post you have just done so too) and the judge clearly stated the opposite, that the police assaulted the youth by touching him and this probably caused his leaping into the water.

114.
i) Assault and Battery
Each application of force, whether by touching, taking hold of or restraining needs to be considered.
a) Force applied to ZH before he jumped into the pool
I have found that PC McKelvie went up to ZH, before speaking to any carer, and touched him gently on the back. Shortly after this, as ZH was starting to jump into the pool, PC McKelvie and PC Colley each tried to take hold of an arm to prevent this.
115.
Such applications of force without consent, as they were, constitute assault and battery, subject to the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. If the preconditions there set out are satisfied no liability is incurred by the Defendant in relation to the acts of his officers.
...

124.
I have already determined that the common law power of necessity is not available where the Mental Capacity Act 2005 applies. If however I am wrong in that view I would hold that the defence of necessity has not been made out in the circumstances of this case. Moving forward and touching ZH without discussing the wisdom of their actions was probably a direct cause of ZH jumping into the water. In these circumstances the defence of necessity is not available nor, as it was not an emergency situation, as opposed to one of potential danger, was their action a necessary one at that time. Were therefore the defence of necessity to be available it would not be made out in the circumstances of this case.

Case Report

I do agree that the report makes interesting reading too, in considerations to use when applying the MCA.

It does seem, to me, that the Police arriving at scene would been best off by just observing initially and then, probably a short while later saying "this is not a police job" and leaving. (Hindsight being such a wonderful thing of course! )

Edited by rosco, 15 March 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[Rocket]

Update;

 

 

 

Autism damages case: Met Police lose damages appeal

 

Appeal judges have rejected a bid to overturn a damages award made to an autistic teenager restrained by police after jumping into a swimming pool.

 

Last year a judge said Metropolitan Police officers had falsely imprisoned and discriminated against the boy, and awarded him £28,250.

 

He was placed in handcuffs and leg restraints and put in a police van.

 

The Met appealed last month saying the ruling could affect operational effectiveness.

 

The Court of Appeal had been told it would lead to officers being advised to be "wary and defensive" when attending emergencies involving people with a disability or mental illness.

 

'Upset child'

 

The case arose in 2008 after the boy, known in court as ZH, jumped full-clothed into Acton Baths, west London.

 

He was lifted out and put in handcuffs and leg restraints and held in the back of a police van before being handed over to carers.

 

He has severe autism and epilepsy and can react adversely if touched or approached by someone he does not know.

 

ZH won a High Court claim for trespass to the person, assault and battery and false imprisonment under the Disability Discrimination Act and the Human Rights Act, last March.

 

'Wholly inappropriate'

 

 

 

He sued through his father, GH, who told the High Court his son had changed since the incident from a "loveable little kid into an upset child" who did not want to bathe, shower or go into water.

 

Sir Robert Nelson, sitting in London, awarded damages and said although the officers were genuinely doing what they thought best, matters escalated to the point where there was a "wholly inappropriate" restraint of ZH.

 

Anne Studd QC, representing the police, told the appeal court Sir Robert had failed to understand "the bigger policing picture" and had come to a "flawed and unworkable conclusion".

 

The judge had failed to build in any operational discretion when officers genuinely believed they were in an emergency situation that required them to act at once, she argued.

 

ZH's father said: "The thousands of pounds of public money being spent by the commissioner defending the indefensible would be much better spent ensuring his officers treat people with disabilities humanely."

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21457138

[adslegend]

But what about their 'duty of care' and taking 'positive action'?!

[Donatello]

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

That's the judgement from the original case, makes interesting reading

[Fry]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="adslegend" data-cid="2383134" data-time="1360875232"><p>
But what about their 'duty of care' and taking 'positive action'?! </p></blockquote>

Well, you never know, this might finally be the beginning of the end of the police being obliged to do something/anything to make up for the failings of carers/staff/social services/mental health services/etc.

[TroyTempest]

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

That's the judgement from the original case, makes interesting reading

 

That is very interesting.  

 

162.This case is another example of the difficult role the police are often called upon to 

 

play. None of them were fully aware of the features of autism, what problems it 

presented and how it should best be dealt with in a situation such as occurred at the 

Acton swimming baths.  They were called to the scene by a misleading message about 

ZH’s behaviour, and on arrival perceived the need to take control and be seen to be 

taking steps to deal with the situation.  What was called for was for one officer to take 

charge and inform herself of the situation, as fully as the circumstances permitted so 

as to be able to decide on the best course of action to take.  That did not happen: their 

responses were over-hasty and ill-informed, and after ZH had gone into the pool 

matters escalated to the point where a wholly inappropriate restraint of an epileptic 

autistic boy took place. They did not consult properly with the carer who was present 

when they arrived, even if he was not as proactive as he might have been in informing 

them of what was happening, what needed to be done and what needed to be avoided. 

 

163.  The opportunities to take stock, before ZH went into the pool and whilst he was in it, 

were not taken. All of those involved in this incident were acting as they genuinely 

thought best, whether pool staff, carers or police, and it is clear to me, having listened 

to their evidence, that all have been to some extent emotionally affected by the events 

of that day.  Whilst I am clear in my conclusion that the case against the police is 

established, I am equally clear in concluding that no one involved was at any time 

acting in an ill intentioned way towards a disabled person. 

 

164.  The case highlights the need for there to be an awareness of the disability of autism 

within the public services. It is to be hoped that this sad case will help bring that 

about.