What happened
A boy with autism, a mild learning disability and cerebral palsy affecting his mobility was placed by his local authority at Baston House School, an independent specialist school in Bromley, at the age of ten.
Shortly after he moved from the primary to the secondary part of the school, his class teacher told the family they would introduce a spit hood because of difficulties with his spitting. The family had not seen him spit at home, and feared a mesh hood would distress a child with sensory processing difficulties. They were assured it would be used in exceptional circumstances only, and understood that refusing consent meant finding alternative provision.
He was also repeatedly removed from class and placed alone in a seclusion room. He told his parents one room was so small he “couldn’t put his legs out”, with a lock in the door. After the family complained, the school said it could no longer meet his needs. He was removed in January 2015.
The outcome
The claim was brought against Outcomes First Group, of which the school’s former owner is now a subsidiary, and not against any individual. It alleged that the spit hood, the restraint and the seclusion were negligent and violated his human rights, including his right to liberty.
An independent psychiatrist concluded that his experiences had caused post-traumatic stress disorder. The claim settled in January 2019 for an undisclosed sum. The defendant did not admit liability, but agreed to pay compensation.
What went wrong
The school authorised itself. During the local authority’s safeguarding investigation, the family received incident reports they had never seen, showing multiple uses of the spit hood. They also found an internal “spit-hood policy” permitting staff to use it in the “best interests” of everyone at the school.
The seclusion was improvised: a cupboard-sized room with a peep hole and a lock and key, used at least once. No assessment is recorded of what it would be like to be shut in there.
Ofsted had found in October 2013 that staff and the proprietor had not taken all the actions required to keep pupils safe, with gaps in safeguarding training records. The hood was still in use in 2015.
What it teaches
A spit hood is a restraint of the head and airway. On a child with cerebral palsy and sensory processing difficulties it is a high-risk device with no therapeutic purpose.
Internal permission is not legal justification. A policy written to authorise a practice is evidence of the problem, not a defence. The test is whether the practice was necessary, proportionate and in the child’s best interests, judged from outside the building.
Questions for the room
- A school writes a policy permitting a spit hood “in the best interests” of everyone. What is missing from that sentence?
- You are the class teacher asked to use the hood. What do you say, and what do you need to have seen first?
- Ofsted found the safeguarding records incomplete in 2013 and the hood was still in use in 2015. What should have happened in between?
Evidence and limits
Confidence: probable. The only source is the claimant firm’s own press release, which states the settlement but gives no figure. The settlement is not a finding of negligence or of a human rights breach, and the defendant admitted nothing.
The précis records an anonymity order over the child, so he is described by age, condition and sector only, and his family, the school staff and the local authority are not identified. The vault record’s restrictions field says “none-known”, which does not reflect the order. This page follows the stricter reading and uses no name.
Our restraint reduction training for schools covers devices that restrict the head, and the assessment they require.
Sources
- Leigh Day, 31 January 2019 · https://www.leighday.co.uk/news/press-releases/2019-news/family-of-autistic-child-subjected-to-a-spit-hood-calls-for-tighter-regulation-of-specialist-schools/
Reviewed 20 October 2026.