Liberty - Protecting civil liberties, promoting human rights

During the trip ZH, who cannot swim, became fixated by the water – a common reaction of those with autism. He presented no danger but the pool manager called police. On arrival officers failed to consult ZH’s carers and touched him on the back and started talking directly to him – prompting the child to jump into the water. He was then removed from the pool and forcibly restrained by seven police officers. ZH was placed in handcuffs and leg restraints and put into a cage at the back of a police van. His detention lasted around 40 minutes.

 

ZH was left frightened and distressed – suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and an exacerbation of his epilepsy. The County Court originally upheld his father’s claims against the Metropolitan Police for assault, battery and false imprisonment, disability discrimination and violations of Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the Human Rights Act – no inhuman or degrading treatment, the right to liberty and the right to respect for private and family life. But the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police appealed – bringing the case back before the Court of Appeal.

Today the Court of Appeal upheld the original findings and dismissed the police appeal – agreeing that the officers’ responses were “over-hasty and ill-informed”, that “a wholly inappropriate restraint of an epileptic autistic boy took place” and that officers failed to “consult properly” ZH’s carers on arrival.

 

The Court rejected the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police’s argument that such consultation would interfere with the operational discretion of officers. “… operational discretion is not sacrosant,” the judgment reads. “It cannot be invoked by the police in order to give them immunity from liability for everything that they do.”

 

The police officers “behaved as if they were faced with an emergency when there was no emergency”, the Court added. “Had they consulted the carers, the likelihood is that ZH would not have jumped into the pool in the first place,” the judgment continues. “The police should also have consulted the carers before lifting ZH from the pool. Had they done that, it is likely that with their help, the need to restrain him would have been avoided. Finally and most seriously of all, nothing could justify the manner in which they restrained ZH.”

 

Liberty intervened in the case to highlight that – in this and other scenarios involving such vulnerable people – negative outcomes can easily result because police officers are improperly trained and fail to take appropriate advice.

 

Emma Norton, Legal Officer for Liberty, said: “Nothing can excuse the officers ignoring ZH’s carers and brutishly intervening and restraining a distressed, disabled child who posed absolutely no threat.

 

“Sadly the police chose to drag this horrifying case through the courts rather than learning from it and implementing some overdue proper training for officers.

 

“Hopefully today’s wake-up call will prevent other vulnerable people from being subjected to such terrifying ordeals by those who are supposed to protect them.”

  

Contact: Liberty Press Office on 020 7378 3656 or 07973 831128

 

NOTES TO EDITORS:

 

1. For a copy of the full judgment in the case, please contact the Liberty Press Office.

 

2. Liberty intervened in the case. Heather Williams QC, instructed by Bhatt Murphy, acted for ZH’s father.

 

3. Article 3 of the Human Rights Act provides that no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It is one of the most important provisions in the Human Rights Act. It is an absolute right – in no circumstances will it ever be justifiable to torture someone. There are a number of obligations on the UK in respect of this prohibition, both negative (prohibiting public authorities from doing things) and positive (requiring the State to take certain action).