‘Why has police officer who hit disabled teenager more than 30 times with a baton not been prosecuted?’
Disabled campaigners have asked why a police officer who struck a black disabled teenager with his baton more than 30 times in just a minute – after she had flagged down his car to ask for help – is not facing prosecution.
PC Ben Kemp, 32, has been dismissed from the Metropolitan police after a disciplinary panel found him guilty of gross misconduct over the attack on the 17-year-old, who has learning difficulties and is a mental health service-user.
But the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has decided that Kemp should not be prosecuted.
There are now serious concerns that the incident will damage disabled people’s faith in both the Met and the wider police service.
Andrew Lee, director of People First (Self Advocacy), which is based in London and is run by and for people with learning difficulties, said the incident made him feel “sick to my stomach”.
He told Disability News Service (DNS): “I felt: this is a crime. This will have an impact on the person with learning difficulties for the rest of their life.
“It reinforces our lack of trust in the police, our belief that we do not have access to justice.
“It reinforces all of our beliefs that if this happens to me, I will not be believed.
“I think the violence will make us fear that we are not safe in our own communities.
“I fear that people with learning difficulties will be frightened to go out and will constantly think, ‘Who can I trust, who will believe me?’”
He said Kemp “needs to face a court”, but he said there should also be a way for the Metropolitan police as an organisation to face criminal proceedings for the actions of its officer.
Lee said that London’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, who is responsible for policing in the capital, should also be held to account for what happened.
A family member, who has seen the video footage of the attack, told Channel 4 News last night that it was “horrific” and showed the teenager had done nothing to provoke Kemp.
She said: “Not a cross word, not even a raised voice.”
She said the footage showed the teenager being sprayed with CS spray and then struck more than 30 times in a minute.
Anne Novis, a member and former chair of the Met’s Disability Independent Advisory Group (DIAG), former chair of Inclusion London and a long-time campaigner on disability hate crime, said she did not understand why Kemp was not being prosecuted.
She told DNS that the young woman had been treated “abhorrently”.
She said: “I believe and feel that he should be facing charges. It was one assault after another.
“This is about an assault on a disabled young person who reached out for help from the police.”
The 17-year-old, who has not been named, appears from official statements to have both learning difficulties and experience of mental distress, and ran off from an escorted walk in Newham, east London, on 8 May 2019.
She flagged down a passing police car, and officers’ own body-worn video showed her telling them that she was “vulnerable” and was a mental health service-user.
She initially agreed to get into the police car, but then left the vehicle.
When Kemp’s attempt to handcuff her was unsuccessful, he used CS spray less than a metre from her face and then began hitting her with his baton.
Another police unit arrived, and the teenager was tasered by an officer from that vehicle.
Meanwhile, Kemp continued to strike her with his baton, before she was eventually handcuffed and put into a police van.
Kemp struck her at least 30 times, according to a statement by the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), even though the footage showed she was “clearly in distress” and “appeared very frightened”.
But despite a police disciplinary panel proving gross misconduct, Kemp will not face any criminal charges.
The IOPC said that police investigations did not find any evidence of disability or race-related discrimination.
Five months after the assault, DIAG was forced to lodge a formal complaint about the Met’s “discriminatory” treatment of disabled protesters during the Extinction Rebellion protests in London in October 2019.
DIAG said then that it believed the force had breached the Equality Act by discriminating against disabled protesters, and warned that those actions risked causing “irreparable damage” to relations between disabled people and the Metropolitan police, and that the consequences of its actions would “take many years to heal”.
Lee said the attack by the police officer on the teenager appeared to be “double discrimination”, on the grounds of disability and race.
And he called for training for police officers to include a test that ensures they know how to engage with people with learning difficulties.
He said: “If you take five good police officers, there will be four officers that will not know how to communicate with people with learning difficulties.
“We live in a society where we have no access to justice. We have no faith that the law will protect us.”
Novis said she feared the incident would have an impact on disabled people across the UK.
She said: “What is going to be the impact on the confidence of disabled people now? If you ask the police for help, could you end up in that situation?
“Why are the words ‘hate crime’ not being mentioned?
“If we perceive someone is attacked because they are a disabled person… then it should be treated as a hate crime, and that would be our perception, that she was targeted, and maybe partly because of race.”
A CPS spokesperson said: “Prosecutors carefully considered the evidence passed to us by the IOPC in 2019 and determined that – taking into account the circumstances of this particular incident – our legal test was not met.
“It is our role to make a fair, independent and objective assessment based on the material presented to us.”
Chief superintendent Richard Tucker, who leads policing for the north-east of London, said Kemp’s use of force had been “utterly inappropriate” and “very disproportionate”.
He said: “On behalf of the Met, I apologise to the young woman and her family for how he behaved and to London’s wider communities for the impact this case undoubtedly has on the trust and confidence they have in how we police London.”
6 May 2021
Activist set for legal action over government’s ‘excessive, discriminatory’ care home rules
A disabled campaigner is hoping to launch a legal action against government COVID rules that force residents of care homes to isolate for two weeks every time they attend a medical appointment or visit a shop.
Doug Paulley has also told managers at his Leonard Cheshire care home that he will not be obeying the government’s “patronising, excessive and discriminatory” guidance.
Despite the government announcing that care home residents can (from Tuesday this week) go for a walk or visit the garden of a friend or relative – as long as they are accompanied – the strict rules on other visits have not changed.
This means that care home residents must self-isolate for a fortnight after every visit to a shop, a hospital, or other indoor settings.
Even for walks and visits to gardens, the care home resident still needs to be accompanied by a care worker or a “nominated” visitor.
Paulley, who lives in a care home in Yorkshire, is set to seek a judicial review of the guidance.
He has highlighted the “excessive” rules that will force him to self-isolate for a fortnight every time he attends one of his regular hospital appointments, volunteers in a local charity shop, meets friends or fellow campaigners, or even just visits a local shop.
He said: “There are a few in our care home who are incandescent about the situation.
“I have reached the decision that I am just not going to comply.”
He has told managers at his care home that he plans to ignore the rules.
Leonard Cheshire has told him that it delayed implementing the rules while it tried unsuccessfully to challenge the government guidance.
Other residents of Paulley’s home are also angry, and one of them has decided to join his legal action, which will be taken through solicitors Bindmans if they can secure legal aid.
Every one of the residents of the home for younger disabled adults has had both COVID vaccines, while all its staff have also been offered both injections.
Paulley has followed the strict guidance on social distancing throughout the pandemic, but now the country is easing out of lockdown, and residents have been vaccinated, he believes the government guidance is “excessive” and a “cynical” response to the criticism of ministers’ failure to protect care homes early in the pandemic.
He said: “I am very conscious of the intense risk there has been in care homes, but the UK is gradually opening up and we are all being vaccinated.
“It feels patronising and excessive and puts such a restriction on people’s lives.
“It just feels open-ended, disproportionate and discriminatory, and stereotypes people in care homes. That’s why this is important to me.”
He added: “I am generally a stickler for following government coronavirus guidance and law.
“I have previously criticised the home for failing to do so, and thus putting our lives at risk.
“So criticising the guidance, and contemplating not complying with it, is a departure for me, and not something I do lightly.
“But this latest guidance feels to me very wrong.
“Just as everybody in the care home has had both vaccinations, the infection rate is falling, ‘official’ shielding has ended, society is starting to open up and there’s a progressive loosening of restrictions, we are having this new obligation imposed upon us.
“It’s our home, it’s our life. It seems bizarre that just because we are in a care home setting, we are treated in such a patronising way.”
Paulley already has an ongoing human rights legal action against Leonard Cheshire for not taking the necessary safety precautions to protect residents of the home during the first national lockdown.
He says the charity failed to obtain COVID tests from local authorities, and failed to stop some residents circumventing the home’s visitor guidelines.
A Leonard Cheshire spokesperson said: “We felt the original guidance placed unnecessary restrictions on people’s choices and activities.
“The government has made some changes around 14 day self-isolation rules following visits, but we still don’t think these amendments have gone far enough.
“Care home residents are generally still advised not to go out, and if they do it’s recommended they only go to outdoor spaces such as parks or gardens.
“Shops and other indoor venues such as gyms are now reopening in a controlled way across the UK.
“But there is currently no advice on when care home residents can once again safely enjoy these or other community facilities.
“There is also a requirement that people should be accompanied on all visits by a member of staff or a named visitor.
“This seems excessive, goes against personal choice, places pressures on families and, while we’ll do our best, won’t always be possible from a staffing perspective.”
The spokesperson said it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the ongoing legal action Paulley is taking against the charity, as it was “ongoing with conversations continuing”.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “We know how important it is for people to spend more time outdoors and we will continue to look at how we can facilitate more visits out as the data shows it is safe.
“This is another significant step towards normal life and is being taken in a way that will help protect care homes from the continued risk of COVID-19.
“The changes come as the data shows cases continuing to fall meaning it is now much safer for care home residents, who are among the most vulnerable to COVID-19, to leave their homes.
“Keeping visits outdoors will ensure any risk is minimised as much as possible.”
*For sources of information and support during the coronavirus crisis, visit the DNS advice and information page
6 May 2021
Universal credit ‘basic fairness’ £20 uplift case given high court go-ahead
The high court has given two disabled campaigners permission to challenge the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over its failure to offer recipients of so-called legacy benefits the same £20-a-week increase given to those on universal credit.
The court will now decide if DWP breached the European Convention on Human Rights by increasing the standard allowance of universal credit by £20-a-week at the start of the pandemic, but not increasing the rate for 1.9 million employment and support allowance (ESA) recipients by the same amount.
Claimants of jobseeker’s allowance and income support have also been excluded from the uplift.
The two ESA recipients who are challenging the decision believe DWP’s failure was discriminatory and unjustified.
They have asked for their case to be heard within the next three months.
One of them, Philip Wayland, from Essex, told Disability News Service (DNS) that the case was about “basic fairness”.
He said: “The case is important to me because for far too long the sick and disabled community have been treated appallingly by many governments. This must change.
“The case is about basic fairness in the welfare system, especially during the pandemic, although the amount people are expected to live on is woefully inadequate at the best of times.”
He added: “Of course, the extra money would help me personally should the case succeed, but to be honest I have been motivated to bring this case because of seeing the many people who are in a much worse position than myself.”
Ken Butler, welfare rights and policy adviser for Disability Rights UK, said: “By restricting the £20 per week increase only to universal credit the government has discriminated against the millions of disabled people on other benefits.
“The judicial review action is great news and if successful will hopefully lead the way for the £20 uplift to be awarded and backdated to all legacy benefit claimants.”
In March, as part of its #20More4All campaign, Disabled People Against Cuts delivered mail bags full of the testimonies of disabled people to DWP, the Treasury and 10 Downing Street, describing the financial struggles they had faced during the pandemic, and calling for the uplift to be extended to those on legacy benefits.
Stephen Timms, the Labour chair of the Commons work and pensions committee, said: “We can see no reason why people should face hardship simply because – through no fault of their own – they happen to be receiving older benefits.
“At a time when living costs, especially for disabled people and carers, have been higher than ever, the government’s approach has undoubtedly left many facing hardship.
“We will await the outcome of this legal challenge with interest.
“But it would be better if the government acted to increase legacy benefits now, without forcing claimants to go through a lengthy legal process.”
William Ford, a solicitor with Osbornes Law, who is representing the two claimants, said: “This unfairness calls for a properly evidenced justification, particularly as almost two million disabled people are disproportionately affected by this decision and the pandemic generally.
“Thus far the government has failed to provide any objectively verifiable reason for the difference in treatment of people in essentially identical circumstances.”
A DWP spokesperson said in a statement: “It has always been the case that claimants on legacy benefits can make a claim for universal credit if they believe that they will be better off.”
Meanwhile, ministers have refused again to publish analysis DWP carried out to show how many disabled people would benefit from the move to universal credit (UC).
The request was made in a written parliamentary question by Labour MP Debbie Abrahams.
Justin Tomlinson, the minister for disabled people, failed to provide the analysis, but he did suggest that new analysis “comparing the benefit entitlement of UC claimants and legacy claimants” would be published “in due course”.
It is not clear if this will be the same analysis sought by Abrahams and if it will show how many disabled people will lose out in the move to UC, as well as the number who will gain.
Ministers have repeatedly claimed that around one million disabled households will receive a higher entitlement under UC than they would have received under the previous “legacy” benefits system.
But every time they repeat the figure, they fail to say how many disabled households are expected to receive a lower entitlement under UC.
DWP has told the Office for Statistics Regulation that the figure of one million households came from “internal analysis carried out to look at the impacts of a proposed policy change”.
DWP claims that this analysis “did not estimate how many people would lose out in the move to Universal Credit”, but only those who would gain.
But despite DWP admitting the existence of this analysis, it has refused to release it.
It even branded DNS “vexatious” for attempting to secure a copy of the analysis.
The most recent DWP equality impact assessment, published nearly a decade ago, in November 2011, suggested that the number of disabled households gaining financially from universal credit would be at least matched by the number losing out (with about 800,000 households in each group), with disabled people who are out of work particularly likely to lose out.
A DWP spokesperson said: “We do not have anything further to add to the response issued last week.”
6 May 2021
NHS England silent over ‘unsafe’ mental distress emergency scheme
NHS England has refused to respond to calls for a halt to the use of a mental health scheme branded unethical, unlawful and unsafe by disabled activists, despite at least one NHS trust and a police force promising to review its use.
The StopSIM Coalition has warned that the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) system is being rolled out across NHS England, despite the lack of high-quality research into its impact on mental heath service-users.
Members of the coalition believe it puts people in severe mental distress at risk of being denied vital support.
Now, just days after the coalition launched its campaign, Surrey police and Surrey and Borders Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (SBPFT) have both said they will examine its concerns.
But NHS England is so far refusing to act, or even to comment on the concerns.
Under the leadership of a police officer and a mental health professional, SIM puts pressure on users of mental health services – often those at high risk of suicide and self-harm – who have not committed a crime but are seen as “high intensity users” of emergency services.
There are concerns that this can involve withholding assessment and treatment, and gives police officers a key role in making clinical decisions when service-users are in crisis.
There was widespread concern across social media last week, after Disability News Service (DNS) reported on the concerns.
DNS reported how the organisation that supports SIM schemes – the High Intensity Network (HIN) – said it was already working with 23 of 57 mental health trusts in England.
Paul Jennings, HIN’s director and founder of SIM and himself a former police officer with experience of using mental health services, admitted last week that there was a need for an independent review of the programme and criticised the lack of support from NHS England.
Jennings, who runs the network with his wife, a former police member of staff, then asked: “Why is a care programme for the most traumatised patients in the NHS being run by two ex-cops from their spare room on the Isle of Wight?”
The coalition has launched a petition that calls for SIM’s rollout and delivery to be halted and for an independent review.
Its concerns and campaign have also been backed by the National Survivor User Network.
Jennings claims there are good reasons for putting pressure on service-users through “positive risk management”, which he said was a well-known principle in mental health care, and he said this involved a “well thought-through, well-intentioned, good balance of risk management”, with crisis plans always co-produced and signed off by the service-user.
He said last week: “All we are doing is providing high-quality information to police officers and paramedics so they can… make a higher-quality decision in the moment of distress.”
But this week, Surrey police said in a statement: “Surrey Police is aware of the recent ‘StopSIM’ campaign in relation to the rollout of the Serenity Integrated Mentoring (SIM) project.
“Together with all of our partners involved, we will look at the concerns raised within the campaign and how they relate to the Surrey High Intensity Partnership Programme (SHIPP) that we operate in Surrey.”
An SBPFT spokesperson said: “We’re aware of the StopSIM campaign and are considering how the group’s concerns relate to the way we’ve applied the SIM approach in Surrey.”
Despite repeated attempts to secure a response to the concerns from NHS England, it had not commented on the use of the scheme by 11.30am today (Thursday), nearly 13 days after it was first approached for a comment.
6 May 2021
Labour silent on why Kendall ignored disabled-led social care plans in major speech
The Labour party has refused to explain why a major speech by its shadow social care minister ignored disabled-led proposals for fundamental reform – including free social care – that were backed by her own leader during his election campaign.
Sir Keir Starmer supported the National Independent Living Support Service (NILSS) proposals during his successful campaign to be elected party leader last year.
He told Disability News Service (DNS) in February 2020 that he backed a motion supporting NILSS which had been passed at Labour’s annual conference.
NILSS, which was drawn up by Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) and the Reclaiming Our Futures Alliance (ROFA), would provide a universal right to independent living that was “enshrined in law”, and would introduce free social care in England, funded by national and progressive taxation.
But despite Sir Keir’s support for NILSS in his campaign, there was no mention of the proposals in the first major speech on her portfolio by his shadow social care minister, Liz Kendall.
Labour’s apparent back-tracking on Starmer’s support for NILSS comes amid mounting concern about the government’s plans for social care reform, with reports this week suggesting there will be no proposals included in next week’s Queen’s speech, with ministers apparently concerned about the cost*.
In her speech, Kendall made no reference to the idea of free social care, or proposals for a right to independent living enshrined in law.
Speaking at the spring conference of the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services – which Labour had described as her first major speech on social care since becoming shadow minister – Kendall spoke repeatedly about the need for higher wages for care workers and more support for family carers.
She did call for more “power and control” for service-users and families and spoke about the need for more support to enable people to live in their own homes for longer, rather than in residential care.
But Kendall focused through her speech on older people’s care, even though working-age adults account for more than half (PDF) of local authority spending on social care.
Some of the grassroots groups behind the NILSS proposals, including ROFA and DPAC, are set to meet Kendall later this month.
Asked why Kendall’s speech appeared to contradict her own party leader’s support for NILSS, Labour failed to respond to requests to comment this week, or say why Kendall made no mention in her speech of free social care or a right to independent living.
*The government originally promised that a social care green paper would be published by the end of 2017, and then July 2018, before delaying it to the autumn and then the end of 2018.
After missing the December 2018 deadline, it was delayed until “the earliest opportunity” in 2019, before health and social care secretary Matt Hancock told MPs it would be published by April 2019.
In July 2019, as he became prime minister, Boris Johnson announced in Downing Street that the government would “fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared”.
But the party’s 2019 general election manifesto offered only future discussions with other parties to build a “cross-party consensus” on reform.
February’s health and social care white paper said the government had “committed to bringing forward proposals this year”.
6 May 2021
Anger from campaigners over Court of Protection sex worker ruling
Disabled feminists have criticised a court ruling that found it would be lawful for a care worker to enable a young disabled man to pay for time with a sex worker.
The Court of Protection has concluded that a care worker would not be breaching the Sexual Offences Act if they supported the young man, known as C, to contact, visit and pay a sex worker.
Mr Justice Hayden also ruled that C’s wish for this to take place was covered by his right to a private life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
In his ruling, he pointed out that paying a sex worker was not illegal, although activities such as “causing and inciting prostitution for gain”, “controlling prostitution for gain” and running a brothel are illegal, as is paying for a sex worker if she is subjected to “force, threats, coercion or deception”.
Care workers can be jailed for up to 10 years for causing or inciting a person with a “mental disorder” to engage in sexual activity.
C, who is autistic and has learning difficulties, told his advocate in 2018 that although he wanted a girlfriend, he “considered his prospects of finding one to be very limited” and “wanted to be able to have sex and wished to know whether he could have contact with a sex worker”.
But in his ruling, the judge said that, although C had the capacity to decide to have contact with a sex worker, he lacked the capacity to identify someone who was “suitable and safe” or negotiate the financial transaction.
The case was brought to the Court of Protection by C’s local authority, after C’s advocate told his social worker about his request.
The court heard that such cases are common and appear to be “more prevalent for young male clients, particularly if they are living with a brain injury”.
Lawyers for justice secretary Robert Buckland told the court that the state should not “facilitate, encourage or promote” such actions and that government policy was “to seek to protect those involved in prostitution and, more generally, actively to discourage it”.
But the judge said that Buckland’s position was “logically unsustainable” because the act of paying for sex was legal and so he “may not obstruct those who wish to participate in lawful transactions nor, logically those who wish to help them”.
He also said that the court would have to consider at a later stage any firm proposals that were drawn up to allow C to visit a care worker, once a comprehensive risk assessment had been carried out and a care plan devised.
The court would also have to decide, at that point, “whether it is in [C’s] best interests to pursue the course that he has set his mind on”.
The court’s ruling caused anger among many disabled feminists.
One of them, Julie Furlong, told Disability News Service that the ruling was an “appalling insult” to women, care workers and disabled people.
She said: “The sex industry is part of the systemic misogyny that all women and girls live with from birth.
“We are sexualised at very young ages, porn culture saturates schools telling girls how to look, dress, act. Our bodies are reduced to consumer goods.
“The overwhelming majority of care workers are women and this expects them to accept that degradation for themselves and others.”
She added: “How dare the suggestion be made that being disabled makes you incapable of establishing a loving, consensual sexual relationship?
“As women, as workers, as disabled people, we deserve to be treated with humanity, and this ruling shows a thumping great lack of that for anyone.”
Another disabled feminist campaigner, Dr EM*, said: “Mr Justice Hayden decided that disabled men had both the right and need to purchase women for their own sexual gratification and thus their carers were to facilitate this.”
She said this was “part of the renewed objectification of the female”.
She added: “No one should want to deny a disabled person the right to love, physical intimacy or a relationship.
“However, the sex industry lobby and this ruling pushes the message that disabled people cannot have loving or intimate relationships unless they pay someone for it.”
She said this was an “abhorrent idea” and suggested that disabled people were “lesser and unloveable”.
Although the government has been given permission to appeal, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: “The secretary of state will decide whether or how to proceed with an appeal once we have considered the full implications of the judgment.”
*Not her real name
6 May 2021
News provided by John Pring at www.disabilitynewsservice.com
