day-to-day good work going unrecognised. As a frontline officer myself, I know that colleagues strive to do their best under difficult circumstances, even when their knowledge of a particular condition (of which autism is one of many) may not be comprehensive. I would urge anyone needing police assistance to feel confident in contacting police, particularly if they have been a victim of crime due to their condition.
Our members discuss service delivery issues on the Police Neurodiversity Forum, a closed message board run by the NPAA, and we use examples such as those highlighted by Autism Injustice as learning tools to improve the training provided to our colleagues. We welcome support professionals to join in the discussion with us - for more information, visit the Membership page of our website: www.npaa.org.uk/membership"
We have addressed some of the concerns raised by the NPAA on our FAQs page
John Nelson, Chair of the National Police Autism Association (NPAA)
Being Autistic in a Non-Autistic World
continued from Home Page...
To refer then to autism as a ‘disability’ should be turned on its head, in as much as it is the rest of human beings who fail to understand or tolerate those who think and communicate differently from themselves.There are of course striking examples of where the potential of the autistic mind has been recognised and harnessed with significant benefits, both for those involved and wider society, most notably Silicon Valley in California where to be autistic is pretty much the norm. Then there is an entire unit of the Israeli army made up of autistic recruits engaged in high level intelligence work tracking computer generated satellite images. Many arts and sciences university campuses are also likely to be autism friendly environments. Yet such examples as these do nothing to enhance the lives of the majority of people on the autistic spectrum who continue to be disabled by the neuro-typical world’s ignorance and discrimination of the autistic brain.
Autistic Behaviours are not Criminal Behaviours
We would not arrest a blind person for bumping into us in a public space, or someone with Tourette syndrome for shouting at us—though no doubt this has happened too. If someone is experiencing an autistic meltdown, freezes, shouts or lashes out, look at what provoked such behaviour in the first place. Extreme fear and panic do not equal aggressive or anti-social behaviour; they are situations that require a calm presence to de-escalate the situation, not, as in Max's Story, being shot with a taser gun and knocked to the ground. In most cases then, autistic behaviour is NOT criminal, it is only perceived and treated as such because of ignorance, and sometimes malicious intent.
Repetitive and compulsive autistic behaviours, of which the individual is often unaware is offending other people, should be contextualised and understood, not criminalised. People understand Tourettes and other neurological behaviours that may be perceived as ‘odd’, so why do they refuse to understand autism; and why should odd behaviour be perceived as criminal?
Research suggests that the percentage of autistic people who commit crime is likely to be lower than that for the neuro-typical population. This is precisely because having a strong moral compass and following rules is a common feature of autism. That the autistic person does not always understand social rules and is unable to defend themselves with language when they transgress them, is not of itself criminal because in many cases, 'mens rea': the knowledge of and intention to commit a crime, is absent.
The fact that there may be a higher percentage by ratio of autistic to non-autistic people in Britain's prisons, is alarming and requires an urgent review. In particular, those whose convictions are based on evidence produced from unlawful police interviews at which no 'appropriate adult' was present, coercion was used, failure to provide 'reasonable adjustments', and other perversions of the course of justice—SEE DISCUSSION AT BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE ON THE POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT (PACE) AND UNRELIABLE CONFESSIONS
Problems with the Police Responding to a Mental Health Crisis?
The police frequently complain in the press that pressures on NHS budgets means that, by default, they have become a frontline mental health service. But that is no excuse for behaving in the barbaric way they sometimes do (again see Max's Story). They have clear statutory and other guidelines to follow, such as The Bradley Report which recommendations diversion away from arrest and custody to clinical services when the person has either declared—or its obvious that they are suffering from—some kind of mental vulnerability. Yet it is obvious from the stories on this site that even where someone produces an autism alert card or is displaying signs of distress or sensory overload, the full force of the law—restraint, arrest, detention—often kicks in with all of the human misery and waste of public money that results.
Why do police still not bother to request an ‘appropriate adult’ when presented with someone who clearly has a prescribed ‘protected characteristic’? PACE requires them to do this by law (SEE EXCERPTS FROM PACE AT BOTTOM OF PAGE) but as is clear from the stories on this site, the police often fail in this most basic of rights.
The internet is awash with safeguarding policies and guidelines, including those published or endorsed by the police such as the National Autistic Society’s, Autism: a guide for criminal justice professionals and Autism: a guide for police officers and staff. The fact that 'safeguarding' as a word has now entered even the police's lexicon is meaningless, as many police officers still do not have a clue what safeguarding means, never mind how to practice it. This is typical of the bankruptcy of political rhetoric; if we repeat something often enough people will believe we understand and practice it.
Even the lawmakers themselves seem to be confused about these issues. In a recent debate in the UK Parliament titled 'Treatment of adults with autism by the criminal justice system', in response to a question about safeguarding autistic adults within the criminal justice system, and clearly mixing up 'liaison and diversion' with the use of section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Policing Minister responding to the debate commented that, "Use of such powers [sec. 136] might be appropriate in the case of a person with autism." There are in fact NO circumstances that a section 136 should be used to take an autistic person to a place of safety—unless they have a co-occurring mental illness, and only then, if they were posing a risk to themselves or others. It seems that even the Minister was not aware that autism is not a mental illness.
Autism is not any kind of illness, and certainly not something that would respond to ‘treatment’. The criminal justice system and statutory health & social services continue to operate in two entirely separate universes of discourse. More often than not its the first refusing to have a dialogue with the second because they are too pumped up to stop and realise that the ‘criminal’ they think they’ve been called out to restrain may actually be a victim in need of safeguarding and support. The unacceptable numbers of deaths in custody of people with a diagnosis of mental illness in the UK already testifies to this. In light of a Parliamentary debate in November 2017 which drew on recent research that autistic people are nine times more likely than the average population to take their own lives, imagine the suicide risk in autistic prisoners, particularly if they are a young person.
The Discrimination of Autistic People
Fifty years ago, homosexual behaviour in Britain was finally de-criminalised and de-pathologised, even though the open discrimination of LGBT people and medical intervention to change people’s sexual orientation continued. And while that discrimination may still exist today, there are strict penalties against those who publicly express it.
So it is with racial discrimination. That in living memory, the attempt to murder an entire ethnic population (as well as disabled people and those who were autistic—as identified by Asperger himself) could be authorised by the state of one of the most ‘civilised’ nations in the West, now seems like science fiction. But let’s not kid ourselves that such behaviour is a phenomenon of history, the world may have advanced scientifically but there is little evidence that human nature has kept pace with those advancements.
James Boswell wrote in his Life of Samuel Johnson that, "A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilisation.” Many others have revived versions of this truism, including American President Jimmy Carter when he stated that, “The measure of a society is found in how they treat their weakest and most helpless citizens [not that autistic people should be characterised in this way]” But if we accept such maxims at face value, then Britain is fast descending into a very uncivilised period of its history indeed.
But to return to autism, in spite of the Autism Act 2009, the criminalising and pathologising of autistic behaviour remains one of the last areas of discrimination in the UK not to be vigorously outlawed. Statutory services such as local authorities, the NHS and the police, frequently discriminate against autistic people without challenge.
For years, mental health services were described as the ‘cinderella service’ of the NHS, receiving proportionally the least resources—and to some extent still do. But compared to dedicated autism services (only now slowly emerging on a piecemeal and tokenistic basis), mental health services are a well protected, statutory mainstream provision. The same goes for national policy and strategy documents. Autism is often only referred to briefly as an afterthought or add-on to mainstream documents written for other disability groups such as the mentally ill or people with learning disabilities—whose clinical practitioners are often woefully ignorant of autism or the risks associated with it. But autism is neither a mental illness or a learning disability, and unless co-occurring with one of those other disabilities, people with autism are excluded altogether from those more protected services. Only a revised, universal Autism Act that gives people real rights rather than merely good intentions, together with the implementation of Lord Bradley’s proposals on 'liaison and diversion' into law (with specific reference to autism), will ensure that autistic people can no longer be denied support, discriminated against and criminalised in the manner they currently are today.
POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT (PACE) and a note on the APPROPRIATE ADULT
concern about proposed changes to Pace, Code C, are described on Panda's website here
PACE Code G concerns the Police's power to arrest:
1.1 "The Equality Act 2010 makes it unlawful for police officers to discriminate against, harass or victimise any person on the grounds of the ‘protected characteristics’ of age, disability, [etc.] —autism is a 'protected characteristic' under PACE
1.2 The exercise of the power of arrest represents an obvious and significant interference with the Right to Liberty and Security under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights set out in Part I of Schedule 1 to the Human Rights Act 1998.
1.3 The use of the power must be fully justified and officers exercising the power should consider if the necessary objectives can be met by other, less intrusive means. Absence of justification for exercising the power of arrest may lead to challenges should the case proceed to court. It could also lead to civil claims against police for unlawful arrest and false imprisonment. When the power of arrest is exercised it is essential that it is exercised in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner which is compatible with the Right to Liberty under Article 5.
PACE Code C concerns the detention, treatment and questioning of suspects in police custody:
1.4 If an officer has any suspicion, or is told in good faith, that a person of any age may be mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, in the absence of clear evidence to dispel that suspicion, the person shall be treated as such for the purposes of this Code. See Note 1G.
1G ‘Mentally vulnerable’ applies to any detainee who, because of their mental state or capacity, may not understand the significance of what is said, of questions or of their replies.
3.15 If the detainee is a juvenile, mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, the custody officer must, as soon as practicable:
• inform the appropriate adult … of:
∼ the grounds for their detention;
∼ their whereabouts.
• ask the adult to come to the police station to see the detainee.
11.18 The following interviews may take place only if an officer of
superintendent rank or above considers delaying the interview will lead to
the consequences in paragraph 11.1(a) to (c), and is satisfied the
interview would not significantly harm the person’s physical or mental
state (see Annex G):
11C Although juveniles or people who are mentally disordered or
otherwise mentally vulnerable are often capable of providing reliable
evidence, they may, without knowing or wishing to do so, be particularly
prone in certain circumstances to provide information that may be
unreliable, misleading or self-incriminating. Special care should always be
taken when questioning such a person, and the appropriate adult should
be involved if there is any doubt about a person's age, mental state or
capacity. Because of the risk of unreliable evidence it is also important to
obtain corroboration of any facts admitted whenever possible. Paragraph
1.5A extends this Note to 17-year-old suspects.
2B. … In the case of juveniles, mentally vulnerable or mentally disordered
suspects, the seeking and giving of consent must take place in the
presence of the appropriate adult. …
11(c) ... except in cases of urgency, where there is risk of serious harm to
the detainee or to others, whenever a strip search involves exposure of
intimate body parts, there must be at least two people present other than
the detainee, and if the search is of a juvenile or mentally disordered or
otherwise mentally vulnerable person, one of the people must be the
1 If an officer has any suspicion, or is told in good faith, that a person of
any age may be mentally disordered or otherwise mentally vulnerable, or
mentally incapable of understanding the significance of questions or their
replies that person shall be treated as mentally disordered or otherwise
mentally vulnerable for the purposes of this Code. See paragraph 1.4 and
Here are the CPS's guidelines on "Confessions, Unfairly Obtained Evidence and Breaches of PACE".
Unreliable confessions were also given a broad interpretation by the Court of Appeal in R v Fulling:
NOTE: The final point here about Appropriate Adults failing to act properly is a serious concern. Few appropriate adults provided by the voluntary and statutory sector (as opposed to friends or relatives acting in that capacity) have the skills or training to understand the particular vulnerabilitIies of those who are autistic. This places the vulnerable adult at even greater risk. It is the same with the role of the Health Care Professional in custody suites. Nurses and doctors who are responsible for assessing whether a mentally vulnerable adult is fit for detention and interview, often have little or no knowledge of autism, or worse, have a close working relationship with the police. Same goes for Duty Solicitors called in by the police. And so even where PACE is properly followed, safeguarding often beaks down through lack of awareness, lack of training and skills, and sometimes even indifference.