IPCC criticises Sussex police over hooding of disabled 11-year-old girl

Girl, known as Child H, was hooded, handcuffed and detained for total of more than 60 hours over four separate occasions

Sussex police have been strongly criticised by the force watchdog after an 11-year-old disabled girl was hooded, handcuffed and detained in custody for a total of more than 60 hours.

The girl, known as Child H, suffers from a rare neurological disorder similar to autism that can cause sudden outbursts of anger.

She was placed in handcuffs, leg restraints and a spit hood after being detained on four separate occasions for minor offences between February and March 2012.

Eleven officers and one police staff member were found to have cases to answer for misconduct after an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC).

The case was described by a civil liberties lawyer as one of the most shocking examples of “inhuman and degrading” treatment of a disabled child in police custody. Government ministers have pledged to ban the use of police cells to detain those under 18 with mental health problems, thought to involve at least 150 children a year.

In findings due to be published on Wednesday, the watchdog criticised a “widespread failure by Sussex police officers to document their use of force in relation to Child H” and added: “Using force on a person so young and vulnerable is a grave occurrence that should be treated with the significance it merits.”

Child H, whose autism-like condition can cause her to become violent and self-harm, cannot be named for legal reasons.

The girl’s mother, whose complaint to the IPCC prompted the investigation, called on Sussex police to drop its policy of using spit hoods on disabled children if they are deemed to pose a risk.

Ms H also attacked the force for refusing to let her see her daughter in the police cells, and for failing to provide the girl with an “appropriate adult” over more than 60 hours in custody on five separate occasions. She was twice held in cells overnight.

Ms H told the Guardian: “It’s really difficult to describe how it feels to know that your 11-year-old child is locked up in a police station, extremely upset and scared, and you aren’t allowed to see her and tell her that everything is going to be all right.

“It felt like she had been taken away from me by people who she didn’t know and who didn’t understand her. I asked police officers again and again to let me see her but they kept telling me that I wasn’t needed. They really didn’t seem to understand that my daughter was first and foremost a child who needed her mum. I wonder how they would have felt if it was their child in that situation.”

She added: “I know that some of the officers were doing their best, but I cannot understand why others thought it was appropriate to put an 11-year-old girl in handcuffs and leg restraints.

“I can’t accept that it will ever be appropriate for the police to hood a disabled child, regardless of how they behave. I call on Sussex police to stop doing this to children immediately.”

The family’s solicitor, Gus Silverman of the law firm Irwin Mitchell, said ministers should urgently ban the detention of children in police cells.

He also raised concerns that the IPCC failed to uphold Ms H’s complaint about the use of spit hoods on her daughter because it complied with Sussex police policy that any spitting would always justify the controversial method, which involves a tightly meshed bag placed over the detainee’s head.

Child H was twice placed in a spit hood while being detained by officers in Horsham, West Sussex. She was twice placed in leg restraints after trying to kick officers and handcuffed on each of the five separate occasions she came into contact with officers.

“This is one of the most shocking examples of a disabled child being held in police custody, both because of Child H’s very young age and because of the length of time she was denied access to an appropriate adult,” Silverman said.

“The statutory code of practice concerning the treatment of detainees is very clear that officers must ask an appropriate adult to attend a police station as soon as possible when a child is detained. The fact that Child H was detained for a cumulative total of over 60 hours without access to an appropriate adult demonstrates an alarming lack of awareness of these clear requirements within Sussex police.

“It is extraordinary that Sussex police does not prohibit its officers from using spit hoods on children. The hooding of children arguably constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment, and therefore breaches domestic and international legal obligations. The use of spit hoods on children should cease immediately.”

Police were called on four occasions after the girl ran away from her mother. She became distressed while being apprehended by officers.

In a fifth incident, the girl was charged with criminal damage after pushing over an advertising board and common assault on a security guard. She was held in police custody for 23 hours and 52 minutes, which left her so distressed she was unable to engage in two mental health assessments.

In total, 27 officers and staff were investigated by the IPCC and 12 were found to have cases to answer for misconduct.

The IPCC censured two Sussex officers for inappropriately handcuffing Child H but did not uphold complaints about the use of the more controversial restraints, concluding they were justified in the circumstances.

However, the watchdog strongly criticised a number of officers for failing to record the use of the methods. This, it said, amounted to a “very worrying failure in that it indicates a lack of appreciation of [officers’] own accountability”.

Seven custody sergeants and a police inspector were found to have cases to answer for misconduct over failing to call an appropriate adult for Child H.

Sussex police said it welcomed the IPCC investigation and had offered “management advice” to each of the criticised officers.

Temporary deputy chief constable Robin Smith said: “We take our responsibility for any use of force very seriously particularly when it involves young people or those who are vulnerable.

“We welcome the IPCC’s scrutiny and during its investigation the force has adopted many schemes to support vulnerable people and those with mental illness, learning disabilities and substance misuse issues.”

He added: “As a direct result of the investigation into this case, personal safety and first aid training, which all officers have to undertake, has been updated. This means officers have learned communication skills to help them be more effective when helping people with mental illness. In addition all officers have refreshed their knowledge in the use of spit guards.

“As a chief officer I have a duty to protect officers and the public when we are called on for help, whether the threat comes from a child or someone who is unwell. This is very often the case and it was on several occasions that the girl’s mother called for our help. The application of any type of restraint is considered only when the level of resistance causes concern for the safety of the detained person, the officer and other members of the public.”

The IPCC commissioner Jennifer Izekor said: “This was a complex investigation, which found Sussex police officers failed to respond effectively to the needs of a vulnerable child.

“While it is clear Child H had significant behavioural problems arising from her disability, Sussex police and, indeed other agencies which were – or should have been – involved, did not appear to have the skills and capacity to respond to her effectively. The situation was exacerbated by the lack of understanding of Child H’s complex needs.”

Izekor said it was important that officers dealing with vulnerable people with mental health difficulties had a basic understanding of their needs. She added: “I was pleased that shortly after we began our investigation the force engaged with Child H’s family to establish appropriate protocols to ensure that lessons were learned and changes implemented in any future dealings with her. We welcome the changes Sussex police has made to its training and processes since the start of our investigation.”

The Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne, said the force had improved training to support vulnerable people but had failed in this case. “The experience of victims is paramount when I hold Sussex police to account for the service they deliver to the public,” she said.

“Undoubtedly, this was a challenging case but the treatment of this 11-year-old was totally unacceptable. However, I welcome the fact that, since the incident with Child H, Sussex police has responded swiftly and positively to the IPCC’s recommendations.”

Timeline of Events:

2 February 2012

West Sussex social services advised Child H’s mother, known as Ms H, to call the police after her daughter ran away from her in Horsham town centre and refused to come back. When officers attended the scene Child H became distressed and was restrained by officers using handcuffs. She was transferred to a local social services office before being placed in temporary foster care.

9 February 2012

Child H again became distressed while out with her mother and ran into a road. Ms H telephoned the police for assistance. Officers arrived at the scene and restrained Child H using handcuffs and leg restraints before detaining her under the Mental Health Act and transporting her to Crawley police station. During the journey Child H was placed in a spit hood, a tightly meshed bag used to prevent detainees from spitting. She was held at Crawley police station for almost nine hours before being assessed as not requiring further detention under the Mental Health Act for the purposes of treatment. Officers refused to let Child H see her mother and failed to provide her with an appropriate adult.

16 February 2012

Officers were called to Child H’s foster placement after she became distressed and violent. She was arrested on suspicion of assaulting her mother and taken to Horsham police station where she was detained for just over 22 hours before being taken to an alternative foster placement. Once again, no appropriate adult was provided. When officers came to collect Child H from her cell she threw her shoes at them and was placed in handcuffs. Whilst Child H was being transferred to the foster placement she continued to be distressed and was restrained using handcuffs, a spit hood and leg restraints. On 19 February she was returned to her mother’s care.

29 February 2012

Child H ran away from her mother’s house and was found by police officers in Horsham town centre. The IPCC investigation found that officers handcuffed Child H “pre-emptively” without arresting her. Officers informed Ms H, who was also at the scene, that they would return Child H home. However, once Child H was in the police car she was arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer and committing a public order offence before being transported to Crawley police station, where she was held for six hours and 43 minutes without access to an appropriate adult.

2 March 2012

Child H ran away from her mother in Horsham town centre. She was observed pushing over an advertising board and police officers were called. Child H was arrested, placed in handcuffs and a spit hood, and taken to a police station where she was detained for 23 hours and 52 minutes. During this detention two Mental Health Act assessments were arranged, with which Child H was unable to engage due to her distressed state. She was subsequently charged with criminal damage to the advertising board and common assault on a security guard before being transferred to a foster placement. The charges were later discontinued by the CPS as not being in the public interest.