Key Points
- Autistic man, known as SH, was detained in his flat by Southwark Council from 2012 to 2020.
- The council imposed a 24/7 care package requiring two carers at home and three carers in the community.
- SH’s front door was locked for most of this period, often preventing his access to the community.
- Carers, often untrained, physically restrained SH.
- SH’s mother repeatedly raised safeguarding concerns about physical and emotional abuse and his isolation.
- The care package was not authorised by the Court of Protection as required by law.
- Southwark Council settled the case for £125,000 in October 2025 but did not admit liability.
- Human rights lawyers from Irwin Mitchell brought the case to the High Court.
- SH’s mother now manages his care package, reporting progress and better relations with carers.
- The family hopes their case raises awareness for other families facing similar issues.
What happened to the autistic man detained by Southwark Council?
An autistic man, identified only as SH and currently in his 30s, was subjected to unlawful detention in his flat by Southwark Council for eight years. According to reporting by MyLondon journalist Kate Thompson, SH was assessed in 2012 as needing constant care. The council implemented a 24/7 care package requiring two carers to be present at all times in his home and three carers providing support outside.
However, between July 2012 and December 2020, SH’s front door was kept locked, effectively confining him and significantly restricting his access to the community. The High Court heard that SH was often prevented from leaving the property due to concerns over his behaviour.
What concerns did SH’s mother raise about his care?
SH’s mother frequently raised alarms about the care arrangements. As reported by Aimee Brackfield of Irwin Mitchell, the family’s human rights legal team, she voiced repeated safeguarding concerns about her son’s lack of community access and the use of physical restraint by carers who were often untrained.
In her own words, SH’s mother described anguish, saying,
“When my son’s care package was first put in place we didn’t know there was an obligation that it needed to be authorised by the Court of Protection. We trusted that the local authority was taking the appropriate steps to keep him safe and cared for.”
She further explained:
“It quickly became apparent that my son’s care package was wholly inappropriate and inadequate for him. We raised on countless occasions our concerns over his lack of community access, his increasingly worrying behaviour, and the use of physical restraint upon him by untrained staff.”
She described watching her son change for the worse — growing scared, isolated, and traumatised daily, which left him emotionally distant and unable to trust others.
How did the carers treat SH during this period?
The High Court was informed by lawyers that carers often physically restrained SH, frequently without proper training. This contributed to his trauma and the deterioration of his mental and emotional state during those years.
Aimee Brackfield told the court:
“During this period, we say he was in effect imprisoned, living in locked accommodation, often unable to leave for weeks on end. To make things worse, his mum repeatedly raised concerns about staff’s lack of training, inappropriate use of restraints, and her son’s escalating behaviours.”
Why was SH’s detention unlawful?
The key legal issue relates to the failure of Southwark Council to secure authorisation for SH’s care package from the Court of Protection, which oversees cases where individuals lack capacity to make decisions about their care and residence.
As Ms Brackfield emphasised,
“The local authority had countless opportunities to refer SH’s case to the Court of Protection to determine where it was in his best interests to live, and to scrutinise his care package. It didn’t do that, and so SH was denied the opportunity of being able to challenge the deprivation of his liberty in a court.”
This failure meant SH was unlawfully deprived of his liberty, equivalent to being ‘imprisoned’ in his own home without legal sanction.
What was Southwark Council’s response to the case?
Southwark Council agreed to a financial settlement of £125,000 on 27 October 2025, as reported by MyLondon. However, the council did not admit liability for SH’s unlawful detention or the failures in his care.
The settlement followed legal proceedings brought by SH’s family with the support of human rights lawyers from Irwin Mitchell. Council officials have not publicly commented beyond the legal process.
How is SH’s situation now?
Following the High Court case, SH’s care arrangements have changed. His mother now oversees his care package and reports that he is gradually improving, showing better interaction with his carers.
She said,
“We just hope that speaking out we can raise awareness of what my son has been through so more families feel able to challenge placements they feel are wrong for their loved one.”
This reflects the emotional toll the ordeal has taken on the family and the ongoing importance of ensuring proper legal safeguards are in place for vulnerable adults.
Why is this case significant for disability rights and care standards?
This case highlights critical shortcomings in social care provision for autistic adults and the safeguarding mechanisms meant to protect their rights.
By unlawfully detaining SH without court authorisation, Southwark Council breached legal protections designed to prevent deprivation of liberty without due process. It also exposed failures in training and oversight of carers working with vulnerable individuals.
Human rights advocates argue that this case underscores the need for greater vigilance, transparency, and accountability in the care system, especially for those with disabilities who require continuous support.
