Published on 12, July, 2020
Firstly: As the (annoying) commentry indicates we don't know all the facts here.
Secondly: It's a "zero hedge" article featuring PJW, so will be utter anathema to some people.
Thirdly: It's morbidly interesting, and somewhat thought provoking.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/arrested-saying-lesbian
NAS has produced free guidelines for police officers about autism. Sadly it doesn't look like its been followed. The police have asked people to refrain from making judgements on the basis of the video clip shared on social media. But that clip shows blatant disregard for the Equality Act with the officer shouting "I dont care" immediately after the girl's mother told them she's autistic and was just making a statement of fact. Mandatory training is desparately needed but the police will also need to explain why they made a Public Order arrest when the girl was in her own home, and why they needed seven police officers. This poor girl has been treated appallingy and I wouldn't be surprised if she's traumatised by it. Thoughts go out to her and her family.
Don’t let the public in public order offence confuse you. Being in your own home is neither here nor there. It’s more whether members of the public are present. And for this purpose the police are treated as members of the public. That said clearly there wasn’t grounds for the arrest because They decided not to charge her.
What about Public Order Act 1968 section 5(2)? See my post above.
If there were no lawful grounds for an arrest, i.e.the alleged incident took place in a private dwelling, the subsequent arrest might be construed as assault, unlawful use of force, false imprisoment ... This is not legal advice, but a point they might wish to raise with a lawyer specialising in actions against the police.
The young person was in a place of safety. Why was an arrest even considered? The alleged offence could be dealt with by a FPN or reported for a summons. Obviously the police need to provide their version of events ...
yes section 4, 4A and 5 have a private dwelling exemption, where both parties are in a private dwelling. But most offences do not. I think it's really obvious that the public order act should be completely re done with freedom of expression in mind. It does after all predate the human rights act.
Anyway subsection 3a is likely to be even more relevant:
"It is a defence for the accused to prove that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress"
Depending on the the court interprets reason that might require the court to take into account the effect of autism on her state of mind.
But you're right false imprisonment or wrongful arrest are clearly on the cards.