Callous restraint of a young autistic male by the police violated his rights under Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHRValuing People strategy:inhuman or degrading treatmentValuing People strategy:liberty and security, right toValuing People strategy:private and family life, right to respect for

Facts: ZH, who suffered from severe autism, epilepsy and learning disabilities, became fixated by the water at a local swimming pool and would not move away from the poolside. His carers knew that if he was touched he might jump into the pool (he was fully clothed at the time). The swimming pool manager called the police who, after a brief conversation with the carers, that established that ZH was autistic, went up to him and touched him. ZH then jumped into the pool. The police then pulled ZH out of the pool and restrained him before taking him, soaking wet and agitated, to the police station. ZH sued.

Judgment: the Court of Appeal (Lord Dyson MR, Richards and Black LJJ) held that the first instance judge had been entitled to conclude that the police had breached ZH’s rights under Articles 3, 5 and 8 ECHR, and that they were guilty of assault and false imprisonment and a breach of section 21B of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The police defence under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 failed: while sections 4–6 of that Act permitted certain acts to be done in connection with the care and treatment of persons lacking capacity if it is in their best interests, those statutory defences were pervaded by concepts of reasonableness, practicability and appropriateness, which were lacking in this case: the police could and should have consulted with ZH’s carers about how best to handle him and could not have had a reasonable belief that their actions were in his best interests.