![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> FXS (Through His Father And Litigation Friend JLM) v The Mulberry Bush Organisation Ltd [2024] EWHC 1406 (KB) (10 June 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/1406.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 1406 (KB) |
[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
(Deputy High Court Judge)
____________________
FXS (through his father and litigation friend JLM) |
Claimant | |
- and – |
||
THE MULBERRY BUSH ORGANISATION LTD |
Defendant |
____________________
Catherine Foster (instructed by DWF) for the Defendant
Hearing Dates:
2, 3, 6 and 7 February 2023; 22 and 23 June 2023; 1, 2 and 5 February 2024; 7 March 2024
Draft Judgment Circulated on 5 June 2024
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Ms Margaret Obi:
Introduction
i. acted negligently and in breach of its duty by (amongst other things) restraining him frequently and with excessive force; inappropriately confining him to his room; and failing to manage his behaviour appropriately.
ii. further, or alternatively, assaulted him during the restraints and/or the acts of restraint constituted battery and/or trespass to the person; and
iii. falsely imprisoned him, on at least two occasions, by placing a towel in the doorway of his room to prevent him from leaving.
Background
Key Events Prior to Admission to the School
"…different from the intake at Netley in that he is a very sociable outgoing little boy and no way in his own world. …[He] has exhibited some very concerning behaviours at school. These include threatening to hurt other pupils and their parents, throwing and smashing objects in temper and teasing his peers relentlessly. [He] talks of his feelings a great deal and has expressed unhappiness and fear. …I feel his emotional needs can only be met with specialist input that is beyond the level we can offer."
"Following an incident whereby [FSX] took his younger sister into the street during the night and left her there, a network meeting was held (on 17/03/08) and, during this meeting, [FSX's] mother was clear that she was no longer able to care for [him]."
This strongly indicates that the incident involving FSX's sister occurred no later than the middle of March 2008.
"….I feel it would be incredibly difficult to take [FSX] on full-time without considerable help and respite, because of his extremely exhausting and challenging behaviour."
FSX's maternal grandmother also provided a written statement (dated 6 May 2008) in which she stated that from when FSX was 3 or 4 years old JLM "took to disappearing" for various periods. For example, on one occasion, he was taking something to the local rubbish dump but "wasn't seen again for two weeks". Then when FSX's sister was born, he "vanished without warning or trace for a period of two months". She stated that the pattern of "disappearing" continued and she expressed the view that FSX had become traumatised as a result of his father's behaviour.
Admission to the School and Initial Assessment
Attendance at the School from September 2008 to September 2009
"With regards to JLM's commitment to [FSX], it was reported he has visited [FSX] at school along with his paternal grandparents. The visit went very well although it was pointed out that [FSX] cannot be told too far in advance of any of these appointments taking place. [FSX] engages with his father and enjoys these visits…[FSX] has a good attachment to his father and both parents have engaged well in the work that has taken place."
"All the staff teams working [with FSX] seemed to have experienced some degree of confusion about [FSX's] suitability for this placement and our ability to meet his apparently very particular needs. This appeared as discussion about autistic features and about which household he should join. …What seems clear is that [FSX's] difficulties impact on people around him powerfully, and that there may be a tendency to rationalise a drive to distance oneself from grappling with [FSX's] difficulties. Given a clear space to think in [sic] the treatment team were rapidly able to be clear that [FSX] is a suitable placement and that they believe that his needs can very effectively be met at [the School]."
"There is a history of behavioural disturbance from a young age with social impairments, communication impairments and restricted interests. The onset of these difficulties has occurred prior to three years of age.
[FSX] has an autistic spectrum disorder. His presentation is consistent with an individual at the higher functioning end of the autistic spectrum… . Additionally, [FSX] has significant behavioural difficulties, and this makes for a very complex presentation. It can be common for children exhibiting this severity of behavioural disturbance to have a coexisting emotional disorder. It has been challenging gaining access to [FSX's] internal world so I can make no formal diagnosis of an emotional disorder, although I feel it is likely that there is coexisting emotional disturbance and that he probably worries on regular basis (sic), particularly when there is uncertainty.
Behavioural support needs to be quite specialised if it is to meet all areas of [FSX's] needs. …
I feel that behavioural interventions through his school environment are most likely to produce an improvement in his behaviour. It is unlikely that he would respond to any direct therapeutic intervention from our specialist CAMHS at present".
"Interventions to help [FSX] develop his self-help and independence skills, his social skills and ability to interact with others, and regulate his emotional state do not appear currently to be entirely appropriate…My discussion with school staff at the review lead me to believe that [the School] will require guidance to implement appropriate strategies."
Mr Jones made the following recommendations:
"[FSX] is likely to require specific research-based interventions suitable for children with ASD, delivered by someone with expertise of working to support children with high-functioning autism, with which his difficulties are consistent.
There should be involvement of a Specialist Teacher or other professional with expertise of working to support children with high-functioning autism and Asperger Syndrome."
"The Local Authority recognises that [FSX] has needs relating to his ASD that are not being met by the Mulberry Bush and that he will need to move to a more appropriate placement in this respect
It also has to consider though, his need for stability and the careful planning required to achieve this
…The Local Authority would want time to identify appropriate provision and plan accordingly, and for this to take place at secondary school transfer age in 2010, to prevent the possibility of him needing to move schools again at this time
…
…A specialist teacher will be identified that can attend the school for half a day per week to spend time with [FSX] and to support the other staff in using strategies appropriate to ASD"
"The school claims to have a handle on [FSX's] behaviour but it is clear from all the evidence before me that the school's behavioural interventions are inappropriate and rely excessively on physical restraints."
In a later email to Mr Turberville, dated 29 July 2009, JLM stated:
"I fully acknowledge the good work you and your staff does with children who are in crisis and I hope that you understand that my views relate specifically to the appropriateness of educational provision for my son as a child with an ASD."
"For [FSX] to move now would be detrimental for him as professionals we need to think about his secondary transfer in September this year. If [FSX] is removed from the school, it would not help his assessment".
Evidence
Factual Witnesses
"When I asked [FSX] to elaborate on his experiences, he told me he did not want to discuss what had happened, that he no longer experienced any symptoms of PTSD such as nightmares or flashbacks and that he had engaged with therapy in the past to help him make sense of his experiences, so that talking about them would only cause needless distress."
"I believe that staff at the school abused [FSX] physically. I also feel that they mistreated him emotionally. They used painful and degrading restraint methods and forced him into seclusion. By his accounts to me, he could not understand why staff were treating him in that way. The very fact that [FSX's] behaviour appeared to worsen considerably during his time at MBS confirms to me that the methods used by staff at the school had a very negative, long lasting effect on his emotional wellbeing."
i. John Diamond, Chief Executive Officer at the School, – witness statement dated 7 September 2021.
ii. John Turberville, Chief Operating Officer at the School - witness statement dated 22 September 2021.
iii. David Roberts, Head of Outreach at the School, - witness statement dated 20 September 2021.
iv. Andrew Lole, School Improvement Leader at the School, – witness statement dated 8 September 2021.
v. William Long, Former Therapeutic Care Worker at the School, – witness statement dated 14 September 2021.
vi. Dr Caryn Onions, Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychotherapist at the School, – witness statement dated 17 June 2022.
vii. Angus Burnett, Head of the Family Team at the School, – witness statement dated 29 September 2021.
viii. Carol Day, Former Head of Group Living at the School, - witness statement dated 30 September 2021.
"1. If you are on your own or if there are more of you but you do not feel it is safe to go into the room to restrain. This may be if the child is throwing hard objects, so therefore to protect yourself.
2. If the child has been restrained for a long time and you feel it is not healthy for him or her to continue and you want to try giving the child some space by backing away. If the child is attempting to attack, then holding the door briefly may break this dynamic." [emphasis in the original]
Expert Witnesses
Breach of Duty
i. No assessment or formal diagnosis of ASD had been made at the time of FSX's admission to the School. The formal diagnosis of ASD was not made until 7 May 2009 by Dr Chapman. FSX was diagnosed with High Functioning ASD, Behaviour Difficulties and possible Emotional Disorder.
ii. FSX's placement at the School was appropriate initially "in order to address challenging behaviours and complex needs and educational needs".
iii. FSX's behaviour escalated in September 2008 following a summer holiday spent with JLM followed by a period of improvement before a further significant escalation in June 2009.
iv. The use of PROACT was appropriate and staff should also have had some therapeutic training.
v. It was reasonable and appropriate for the School to seek external help in managing FSX. The School assessment in October 2008 requested a formal assessment of FSX and the referral to CAMHS in December 2008 was reasonable. The only reservation is that there was considerable delay between the referral to Dr Chapman and his assessment, but this was not in the control of the School.
vi. There were clear indications that FSX was displaying extreme behaviours many years before his placement at the School.
vii. Background factors contributing to FSX's behaviour included parental discord, inconsistent parenting styles, possible limited sexual boundaries, apparent lack of consequences for his actions, the birth of his sister, and no formal diagnosis of ASD.
viii. As FSX grew bigger and became stronger over a short period of time, this would have presented more challenges to his carers.
i. Knowledge of ASD: Ms McKenzie stated that the School should have had more knowledge of the emerging understanding of ASD, in particular through the Foundation Degree in Therapeutic Work established by the School's Head of Training - Mr David Roberts. There is evidence that the school had a member of the teaching staff who had approximately 9 years' experience of working with children with ASD. Mr Vince disagreed. During 2008-2009 the "understanding of ASD was limited within residential practice and education settings". He noted that the Foundation Degree course referred to by Ms McKenzie was only created in 2008. He also relied upon the Ofsted report dated October 2008 which states that "staff training is outstanding."
ii. Use of Restraints in Principle: Ms McKenzie acknowledged that she "is not an expert in residential care" but took issue with the use of the supine method which she states should never be used. It was her view that "…although most aspects of this approach [PROACT] were reasonable to use with [FSX], certain aspects were unacceptable for use on a slight 10-year-old. For example, the 'supine' which was designed for use on aggressive adults in mental health settings. Furthermore, the use of a 'Face Down Supine' (i.e. 'Prone') should never be used on a child. Some experts consider this type of restraint as dangerous when used on petite or slight children." Mr Vince stated that "Supine was a recognised restraint technique within the training programme delivered to children's residential care settings and schools. It continues to be a recognised restraint technique in programmes delivered in these settings".
iii. External Advice During FSX's Placement: Ms McKenzie believed that further advice should have been sought either from the Local Authority or from the local CAMHS. She considered that once the ASD diagnosis was received on 7 May 2009, the School should have sought specialist interventions as recommended by Dr Chapman. Mr Vince disagreed and referred to "a significant number of meetings" between the School, the Local Authority and other agencies. Dr Chapman stated that behavioural interventions through the school environment were most likely to produce an improvement in FSX's behaviours and it was unlikely that he would respond to any direct therapeutic intervention from specialist CAMHS at present. In any event, the School had lined up support from a teacher with specialist ASD experience.
iv. FSX's Case in Focus: The experts were asked to identify any particular incidents of restraint which were not appropriate and/or not reasonable and to state in respect of each and every incident the relevant date, the basis for such opinion, whether such an approach would have been considered to be appropriate and reasonable by a responsible body of appropriately qualified and skilled professionals working in the same context and what steps should have been taken as an alternative, together with the alleged outcome thereof. Ms McKenzie cited 4 incidents. These incidents took place on 27 July 2008, 16 June 2009, 29 June 2009 and 15 September 2009. She stated that many proactive and positive interventions can assist without the use of restraint and that had external support been sought, alternatives would have been suggested. Mr Vince did not accept that any of the recorded incidents were inappropriate and/or not reasonable. He pointed out that each physical restraint is unique and requires staff to act decisively and effectively in the moment, often in a matter of a few seconds to assess the presenting risk, to communicate to all involved and act to steer the situation to a "good enough" outcome. He also states that his "opinion is further supported by the findings of the Police and Placing Authority Investigation that found no wrong-doing by [the School], the findings of the Tribunal Panel that found no wrong-doing by [the School], and the judgement of 'Outstanding' given by Ofsted to [the School]. These could reasonably all be considered as "a responsible body of appropriately qualified and skilled professionals working in the same context".
v. False Imprisonment: the experts agreed that whether the School's towel method amounted to a "deprivation of liberty" (it was agreed by Ms Walker that this term has a specific meaning and therefore references to deprivation of liberty in the Particulars of Claim should be read as a reference to false imprisonment) is a legal matter outside of their expertise. Mr Vince pointed out that the towel method was used to keep FSX's bedroom door ajar to allow staff to continue to communicate with him without being at risk of attack. He relied upon his own experience of having used a similar methodology in his own practice. He also relied upon a guidance document from 2019 which supports this approach. Ms McKenzie stated that the 2019 guidance post-dates the events in question and in response to the question "what other technique D should have utilised", she stated that she "is not an expert in residential care". It was Ms McKenzie's view that the towel was used to hold the door closed and any means to prevent FSX from leaving his room amounted to a 'deprivation of liberty'. It was Ms McKenzie's understanding that FSX was not under direct supervision as staff were not in his room but remained outside.
Medical Evidence
i. FSX was presenting with features of ASD, although he had not been formally diagnosed with this condition at the time of his admission to the School in June 2008. A formal diagnosis was not made until 7 May 2009.
ii. Both accept that the issue of FSX's special educational needs at the time of his admission is not within their area of expertise.
iii. At the time of admission to the School, FSX was presenting with a Mild Learning Disability, ASD traits, emotional/behaviour difficulties and attachment difficulties.
iv. The current diagnoses are ASD and Mild Learning Disability.
v. FSX's challenging behaviour was multi-factorial in its aetiology.
vi. Prior to his admission FSX was presenting with challenging behaviour within the school, community and home environments, where his mother was struggling to manage his presentation:
"…there were inconsistencies across all environments and that others were struggling to manage [FSX's] behaviour; hence the reason why he was admitted into a residential school".
vii. "[FSX's] behaviour became more challenging during the period when he attended MBS, but again this is within the area of an Educational Psychologist"
viii. Both accept that Dr Chapman did not make any particular recommendations.
ix. If FSX was struggling at the School further support could have been sought from external agencies: "an educational psychologist would be able to provide additional comments on this area".
x. The placement at the School was appropriate for FSX based on his needs as understood at the time of his initial placement:
"[FSX] did not have a formal diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder at the time he was admitted to [the School]. It would not have been necessary for the Local Authority to consider seeking a residential educational placement specifically adapted to the needs of young people with autism spectrum disorder. It was only after the diagnosis of ASD was confirmed by Dr Chapman that a more specialist placement could have been identified".
xi. Under the heading "Causation of any Injury" it was agreed that FSX would have become distressed because of the restraint which was being used and would also have had a limited understanding about being away from home: "…but it did not give rise to additional psychiatric difficulties sufficient to meet any formal psychiatric diagnosis".
xii. FSX's placement at the School broke down because his father, who had parental responsibility, withdrew section 20 consent.
xiii. The strategies used at the School were not effective in improving FSX's presentation and:
"Although difficulties in finding suitable placements for [FSX] after September [2009] lead to increasingly frequent breakdowns in such residential educational placement, it was not inevitable that [FSX] would require treatment in a psychiatric setting. The breakdown of these placements increased the risk of [FSX] requiring psychiatric treatment. However, whatever the outcome of [FSX's] time at MBS, it is likely that he would have required specialist psychiatric treatment in adolescence".
xiv. As a consequence of his learning disability and Autism, FSX will always need a high level of support.
Key Legal Principles
Negligence
"The test is the standard of the ordinary skilled man exercising and professing to have that special skill. A man need not possess the highest expert skill; it is well established law that it is sufficient if he exercises the ordinary skill of an ordinary competent man exercising that particular art.
... he is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in accordance with a practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of medical men skilled in that particular art. ... Putting it the other way round, a man is not negligent, if he is acting in accordance with such a practice, merely because there is a body of opinion who would take a contrary view."
"…the court has to be satisfied that the exponents of the body of opinion relied upon can demonstrate that such opinion has a logical basis. In particular in cases involving, as they so often do, the weighing of risks against benefits, the judge before accepting a body of opinion as being responsible, reasonable or respectable, will need to be satisfied that, in forming their views, the experts have directed their minds to the question of comparative risks and benefits and have reached a defensible conclusion on the matter"
Battery
"So widely drawn a principle must inevitably be subject to exceptions. For example, children may be subjected to reasonable punishment; people may be subject to the lawful exercise of powers of arrest; and reasonable force may be used in self-defence or for the prevention of crime. But, apart from these special instances where the control or constraint is lawful, a broader exception has been created to allow for the exigencies of everyday life. Generally speaking, consent is a defence to battery; and most of the physical contacts of ordinary life are not actionable because they are impliedly consented to by all who move in society and so expose themselves to the risk of bodily contact… In each case, the test must be whether the physical contact so persisted in has in the circumstances gone beyond generally acceptable standards of conduct; and the answer to that question will depend upon the facts of the particular case."
"an intention to injure is not essential to action for trespass to the person. It is the mere trespass by itself which is the offence."
"(1) A person to whom this section applies may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances for the purpose of preventing a pupil from doing (or continuing to do) any of the following, namely–
(a) committing any offence,
(b) causing personal injury to, or damage to the property of, any person (including the pupil himself), or
(c) prejudicing the maintenance of good order and discipline at the school or among any pupils receiving education at the school, whether during a teaching session or otherwise. [emphasis added]"
False Imprisonment
"As it is put in Street on Torts, 15th ed (2018), by Christian Witting, p 259 "False imprisonment involves an act of the defendant which directly and intentionally (or possibly negligently) causes the confinement of FSX within an area delimited by the defendant." The essence of the imprisonment is being made to stay in a particular place by another person. The methods which might be used to keep a person there are many and various. They could be physical barriers, such as locks and bars. They could be physical people, such as guards who would physically prevent the person leaving if he tried to do so. They could also be threats, whether or force or legal process."
Guidance and Policy Documents
Guidance
"The use of force is associated with increased risks regarding the safety of service users and staff and inevitably affects personal freedom and choice. For these reasons this guidance is specifically concerned with the use of restrictive physical interventions."
"The scale and nature of any physical intervention must be proportionate to both the behaviour of the individual to be controlled, and the nature of the harm they might cause. These judgements have to be made at the time, taking due account of all the circumstances, including any known history of other events involving the individual to be controlled. The minimum necessary force should be used, and the techniques deployed should be those with which the staff involved are familiar and able to use safely and are described in the child or service user's support plan. Where possible, there should be careful planning of responses to individual children and adults known to be at risk of self-harm, or of harming others."
Policy
"[s]anctions are routinely used by staff teams to promote appropriate behaviour, and to help individual children accept responsibility for their actions. Staff teams should regularly review the use of sanctions for individual children to ensure that they are helping them to learn and become more responsible. If a sanction is not appropriate or effective it should not be used."
"internal exclusion" – "This means being supervised 1 to 1 in a place away from the other children following a very serious incident e.g. setting the fire alarm off, absconding, or serious physical assault."
"A.III…Don't use restraint as such a regular feature of practice that it comes to be seen by children as such an everyday method of control and one which they will come to demand/expect before accepting adult authority."
"Guidance on the use of physical restraint:
- Only use a physical restraint if you have been trained in the use of [PROACT].
- Only use a physical restraint if a child is in danger of hurting her/himself, yourself or another person, causing non-trivial damage to property, or seriously disrupting another children.
- Only use a physical restraint if other forms of intervention have been tried and preventative steps are unsuccessful. These may include talking, comforting, calming, withdrawing yourself from the situation. It is not permitted to restrain children face down."[emphasis added]
Submissions
On behalf of FSX
On behalf of the School
Issues
i. Was FSX subjected to assault and/or battery during his placement at the school, in particular on 16 June 2009, 29 June 2009, and 15 September 2009?
ii. Was FSX subjected to false imprisonment during his placement at the school on 14 December 2008 and 15 September 2009?
iii. Was the School negligent in its management and care of FSX?
iv. What (if any) loss and damage flows from the alleged tortious conduct?
Analysis and Factual Findings
Overview
i. 22 July 2008: Supine – "the use of a Supine appears excessive, given that FSX had already responded to Touch Support and a Two Person Wrap during the same incident".
ii. 16 June 2009: use of a Face Down Supine (Prone): "This is never an appropriate method of restraint for a child of 10 years old".
iii. 29 June 2009: Face Down Wrap. "This is an inappropriate method for use with a child".
iv. 15 September 2009 – application of a Face Down Supine (Prone) "as above".
"On reviewing the records of restraint, I believe that, using these guidelines, the vast majority, with only a handful of exceptions (including 4 July 2008, 6 July 2008 14 July 2008), would meet the DOE criteria for use of restraint - in that the restraints do appear to have been in response to aggression and were undertaken in order to manage the risk that DD was posing to either himself or more frequently to other people. In general, the type of restraint used seems to be proportionate to the episode described in the incident notes, with the exception of the use of face down supine restraints…" [emphasis added]
i. Should certain paragraphs of Ms Foster's Reply be disregarded?
ii. Should Mr Vince's expert evidence be disregarded or afforded little weight due to an undeclared conflict of interest?
iii. Should any adverse inferences be drawn?
Ms Foster's Reply
Undeclared Potential Conflict of Interest
Adverse Inferences
Battery
16 June 2009
"[FSX] was separate for setting the fire alarm off. After tea, [FSX] started trying to leave his room and said he was going to set the fire alarm off again. [Ms Pusey] stopped [FSX] by holding his forearms, and reminded him, he could only have the door open, if he could be sensible in his room. [FSX] could not do this and started to hit and kick. [Ms Pusey] held [FSX] in a wrap, but this was not effective to protect herself. [Ms Pusey] held [FSX] on the floor applying some weight to [FSX's] back. [Ms Pusey] called for support so that she could leave [FSX's] room and hold his door shut until he could take control of himself. Dave Goodspeed assisted in helping [Ms Pusey] leave the room so that she could hold [FSX's] door shut. Holding the door shut felt safer than one adult restraining [FSX]." [Emphasis added]
29 June 2009
"[Ms Pusey] then asked FSX to go to bed. [FSX] used racist language. When [Ms Pusey] told [FSX] that he would not be getting his ice lolly that night, because of his behaviour, he started trying to hit [Ms Pusey] in the face. [Ms Pusey] protected herself by holding [FSX] in a wrap, face down on his bed. [FSX] remained in this position for roughly 10 minutes before being able to talk about what could help him to settle." [emphasis added]
15 September 2009
"[FSX] started attacking [Ms Pusey] and bit her arm, so [Ms Pusey] put [FSX] in a wrap and then pushed him on to the ground face down to protect herself whilst she called for support." [emphasis added]
Two members of staff then supported Ms Pusey to put FSX into a supine on the floor.
"…acted reasonably and competently at all times and within permitted limits and constraints in its use of Physical Intervention/Restraint, the type of measure used, the length of the Physical Intervention/Restraint, the recording of the measure, and the involvement of the child…in subsequent discussions about the use of the Physical Intervention…"
However, during his oral evidence, Mr Vince agreed that the size and build of a child is a relevant factor. The records indicate that as of September 2009, FSX was 142.6cm (4ft 6) and 33kg (50th centile for his age). Ms Day stated in her witness statement that Ms Pusey was "the same size" as FSX. I accept the submission made by Ms Walker that if that was the case it calls into question the appropriateness of Ms Pusey being left in situations where she may have to restrain FSX on her own particularly as on other occasions multiple individuals were required to put into effect a safe restraint. Paragraph 5.1 of the 2002 Guidance provides that the setting should ensure "that the number of staff deployed and their level of competence corresponds to the needs of children and service users and the likelihood that physical interventions will be needed. Staff should not be left in vulnerable positions."
False Imprisonment
"Secondly, two member of staff…informed me that [FSX] was forcibly detained in his room for two hours today. As bedroom doors have no locks on them (for legal reasons), the staff use towels to loop round the inner handle and force the bedroom door shut from the other side. Clearly, using towels to force the door shut in this way so that the child cannot open it has the same practical effect as locking it with a key. The school does not have the required approval to forcibly detain children in their [rooms] for any length of [time], and [therefore],… this practice is unlawful to all intents and purposes and must stop In (sic) line with current legislation."
Negligence
Conclusion
Case No: QB–2020-001662
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
FSX (through his father and litigation friend - JLM) |
Claimant | |
- and – |
||
Mulberry Bush Organisation Limited | Defendant |
Margaret Obi:
Introduction
Background
i) acted negligently and in breach of its duty by (amongst other things) restraining him frequently and with excessive force; inappropriately confining him to his room; and failing to manage his behaviour appropriately.
ii) further, or alternatively, the incidents of restraint constituted acts of assault and/or battery and/or trespass to the person; and
iii) deprived him of his liberty, on at least two occasions, by placing a towel in the doorway of his room to prevent him from leaving.
Scope of Dr Rippon's Evidence
"There be permission to each party to call the experts set forth above to give oral evidence at trial limited to the areas upon which they remain in in substantial and material disagreement (sic)."
Submissions
Decision