Trigger warning: Girl gets arrested, seemingly for being Autistic in a built up area.

Evidently they don’t consider drunken disorderly to be a mental health issue.

and seizing property without a lawful basis is a serious infraction for the police.

and even if they seize it deleting the video may simply not be possible if the phone is locked before they get a hold of it tthey have to take the defendant down to the station and threaten them with prosecution if they didn’t unlock the phone.

Robert124 said:

The police were first involved in taking the drunken girl home from the city centre.  Why?  I thought the police were  no longer getting involved in mental health issues.

I thought this as well. 

I like your sense of humour

I do not think that police officers lawfully can take possessions off people who are not committing any offence, as they would be either committing theft, or criminal damage, depending on whether or not they kept the phone for any length of time.

I'm still confused about what really happened or how the situation could have been handled.

1. The police were first involved in taking the drunken girl home from the city centre.  Why?  I thought the police were  no longer getting involved in mental health issues.
2. Why was the mother allowed to film the encounter on her mobile phone?  Any competent police person would have confiscated her phone and deleted the incriminating video.

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.

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 ...

It's almost like they don't approve of ***'s. https://youtu.be/_-BjC1GHwPY

Or not even that. Cressida *** was responsible for the murder of a regular person and became the most powerful person in policing in like 5 years. 

Edit - that auto censor makes it look like I'm refusing to say her last name because she's so awful

And if there were not grounds for arrest, then the police have committed an offence against the person, they should be accountable for their unlawful actions.. If they have the discretion to make those decisions they should be accountable for that.. But they won’t of course, they’ll just transfer to police-staff for a bit or move to a different force, until it all blows over..

The police are not members of the public, they are peace keepers, public servants..

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.

Omg yes I read about this. Disgusting treatment, made worse that they knew... Horrible.

The police aren't trained at all with autism and they don't even try it seems.

Last year I had to go in to hospital because of a bad kidney infection and the paramedics were really understanding. Because I was distressed and anxious they turned off the sirens on the ambulance which really helped to put me at ease.

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.

In the case of ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, the issue was that there was a carer present and the police did not consult them or take their advice.

If the alleged "homophobic remark" took place in a public place she should have been cautioned and charged or arrested, at which point she is vulnerable and PACE kicks in ... she needs to have an appropriate adult.

If she was arrested at her home she had an appropriate adult present, her mother. She should have been told what she was being arrested for and cautioned. A news report said that she was detained for 20 hours and was not given access to an appropriate adult. If that is the case, we really do have a problem. It is not a matter of the police acting "maturely" it is also about following the Police and Criminal Act Codes of Practice.

Ian said:

It is illegal for an adult to buy alcohol for a minor, or for a licensee to sell alcohol to a person under age. If it was a private party, there should have been an adult in charge.

I recall being 16 - there was a collective drive to find workarounds for all the things that were forbidden to us due to age at that point, especially the gateway drugs like alcohol and cigarettes which made us feel mature and hence more desireable socially.

The lengths we went to in order to get our hands on booze were a source of much social cudos, especially when it was shared with our less capable (or more scared) friends.

It is unlikely to be adults who are to be to blame here - just kids doing what kids do.

Ian said:

The police brought a vulnerable young person home, which sounds like an appropriate response. Whether it needed so many officers is open to question.

This does seem odd I must admit - it started off properly and seem to descend into a complete shotshow very fast.

What does this mean? The mother presumably has parental responsibility, not the State. The kid was not in care.

It is illegal for an adult to buy alcohol for a minor, or for a licensee to sell alcohol to a person under age. If it was a private party, there should have been an adult in charge. That said, it is not uncommon for teenagers to drink alcohol, or even become intoxicated. The police brought a vulnerable young person home, which sounds like an appropriate response. Whether it needed so many officers is open to question.

Ian said:

If the alleged remarks took place in the home, as seems to be implied

Reading other articles for sources of background showed that she was initially stopped by police for being drunk in public and they were trying to do the decent thing and return her home to a safe environment.

It is not clear at what point the comment was made and when the police officer escalated to trying to arrest her.

Ian said:

I wonder whether the police will show as much enthusiasm in seeking out and charging the adults who supplied the alcohol?

I recall being able to buy alcohol from a range of places when I was 15 so I'm sure it could be any number of avenues such as fake IDs, friends nicking it from home, or shops not bothering to check IDs just to make some money.

In spite of the noise surrounding this incident now I rather suspect it wall all go quiet soon enough and the girl will have to live with the emotional trauma from having found herself in a stupid situation (ie being drunk in public and trying to be social with police when questioned).

Both sides have failed here but the police are the ones who should have behaved much more maturely since they had the benefit of age, experience and a duty of care to the public.

What arrestable offence had she committed?  If the "public order offence" was the old standby of s.5 Public Order Act 1968. then

" (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)uses threatening [F1or abusive] words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or

(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening [F1or abusive],

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling. "

If the alleged remarks took place in the home, as seems to be implied, I think the parent should get legal advice as to whether the arrest was unlawful, if so, whether there is a case for wrongful arrest, or assault. Police constables are personally liable for how they exercise their authority.

If the officer said " I don't care " that could lead to all sorts of questions. Assuming it was on the body camera and the image does not get accidentally "lost". As Peter says, there are similarities with ZH v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis. Presumably that is part of the training for police officers.

I wonder whether the police will show as much enthusiasm in seeking out and charging the adults who supplied the alcohol?