Key Facts
- •FSX, a 25-year-old with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and a mild learning disability, claimed damages against The Mulberry Bush Organisation Ltd (the School), a special school.
- •FSX was a resident at the School from June 2008 to September 2009, aged 9-11.
- •FSX alleged negligence, assault/battery, and false imprisonment by the School due to excessive restraints, inappropriate confinement, and inadequate management of his needs.
- •The School's Ofsted reports rated it as 'Outstanding', but the case focused on FSX's individual care.
- •Multiple experts were involved, including psychiatrists and social workers. A significant disagreement between experts existed regarding the appropriateness of restraint techniques used.
Legal Principles
Negligence
Bolam v Frien Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582; Bolitho Appellant v City and Hackney Health Authority Respondents
Battery
Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 W.L.R. 1172; Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] A.C. 871; Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237
False Imprisonment
R (Jolloh) v Home Secretary [2021] AC 262; R v Governor of Brockhill Prison, ex p Evans (No 2) [2001] 2 AC
Use of Force in Schools
Section 93 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006
Outcomes
Claims of assault/battery were successful for three specific incidents involving face-down restraints, deemed unreasonable and contrary to school policy.
The court found the face-down restraints violated school policy, lacked proper training, were inherently dangerous, and were not justified as emergency responses given FSX's predictable behavior.
The claim of false imprisonment was successful due to the School's use of the 'towel method' to restrict FSX's access to his room.
The court determined this method constituted a planned, unlawful seclusion and was not in accordance with policy or guidance.
The negligence claim was dismissed.
While the court acknowledged criticisms of the School's strategies, it found that the School's overall approach was reasonable given the circumstances, and did not fall below the acceptable standard of care for professionals in similar settings.