Excusing AR’s behaviour on the basis of his perceived or diagnosed autism spectrum disorder

¶23. There was a repeated tendency on the part of multiple agencies to excuse AR’s behaviour (including his violence) on the basis of his perceived or, later, confirmed autism spectrum disorder (ASD). Throughout this report I refer to ASD unless quoting text that refers to autism spectrum condition (ASC). Both terms are widely used and describe the broad continuum of autism. In adopting ASD for the purposes of this report, I have noted the position of NHS England that it is the official way of describing autism. The use of “disorder” in accordance with the clinical diagnostic term should not be taken to reflect adversely on the autistic community.

¶24. I make clear from the outset that it would be entirely wrong to make a general association between autism and an increased risk of violent harm to others.

¶25. AR, however, manifestly fell into the cohort of those with ASD whose individual characteristics mean that their autism does carry an increased risk of harm to others.

¶26. Far from recognising that AR was responsible for his own actions, and that his ASD meant (in his individual case) that he posed an increased risk of harm to others, agencies regularly used his autism as an explanation or even excuse for his conduct, including his violence. This was both unacceptable and superficial.

¶27. Linked to this, the presence of AR’s ASD – even prior to the formal diagnosis – became a way for agencies such as the police, Prevent and social services to view any difficult behaviour by AR as a “mental health” problem. This reflected a poor understanding of both ASD itself and a misunderstanding of the ability of mental health services to ‘treat’ or address it.

¶28. Examples of agencies inappropriately ascribing/excusing AR’s behaviour as being merely due to his ASD include:

¶a. The insipid response of CYJS to AR’s refusal to cooperate with appointments mandated under his referral order;³²³² T/S: 29/14/2-9, T/S: 29/19/1-25/14.,³³³³ Chapter 9: Social care.

¶b. The excusal of AR’s concerning comments and behaviour in the context of the First and Third Prevent Referrals;³⁴³⁴ T/S: 21/70/4-73/8, T/S: 21/90/14-19, T/S: 21/100/2-24, T/S: 22/145/6-146/8; Witness Statement of DC Aspinall CTPNW000173/§§37-42.,³⁵³⁵ Chapter 8: Prevent and Counter Terrorism Policing.

¶c. The collectively inadequate response to AR’s various incidents of violence in the home address in November 2021;³⁶³⁶ T/S: 29/176/19-177/25, T/S: 30/110/17-111/8.,³⁷³⁷ Chapter 9: Social care.

¶29. Even when ASD was a factor in why AR was behaving in a certain way, it was never properly recognised that, in his particular case, this was a factor which significantly increased the risk that he posed. It meant that his long-standing and already disturbing interests in violence, weapons, and atrocities escalated to far beyond anything that could be regarded as normal or reasonable. It also contributed to AR’s tendency to perceive even the smallest of matters as a grave injustice towards him, his inability to let such situations go or to perceive two sides to a situation, and his willingness to escalate confrontations save when the very clearest and most firmly applied boundaries were set. All of those matters should have been indicators that AR’s ASD – given his particular characteristics and in his individual case – was a factor that significantly increased the risk he posed to others.

¶30. Strategies and interventions were therefore needed to address that risk. Instead, all too often the presence of ASD was treated as an excuse and the underlying risk left unmanaged.