AIBU to think a man accused of throwing a child into a crocodile enclosure should not get bail?

[YourKeenOliveNewt]

Aibu to think the man who threw an unknown 3 year old into a crocodile enclosure shouldn't be out on bail?

If anyone could provide any insight into the reasoning behind why was granted bail I would be very interested to hear it.

AIBU: He's a danger to society
AINBU: Innocent until proven guilty

I don’t know but it will certainly be interesting to see who is held accountable.

You can never be too sure of who’s around you when out in public. I always wince when I see people standing too close to the track when a train comes in. I think that they could easily be pushed.

I think society does it best to try and protect people but of course no measures are ever perfect. We don't know anything about the history of the person who did this and indeed what happened on the day or who may have been at fault. We cannot treat everyone with an injury, disability or learning problems like a criminal. These cases are extremely rare.

Literally nobody is saying that everyone with an injury, disability or learning problem should be treated like a criminal.

As this thread has made clear, there are plenty of people out there with special needs AND a known history of challenging social behaviors and the current risk management around these particular people seems to be pretty lacking.

Unfortunately however stringent risk management is there will be rare tragedies either because of human error or unforeseen circumstances. I don’t think that assessments are generally lax or there would be far more cases. You could also say that zoos should have more stringent enclosures.

So no trial?

I would disagree, this seemed like alcohol fuelled rage, that people wouldn’t agree with her. The increasingly poor language, for example “nut house”, which is an extremely poor term as the night went on, is from my experience with an alcoholic brother, typical of too much alcohol intake.

I may also be wrong, but this type of belligerence and unwillingness to listen to any other view, to me a typical alcohol fuelled rant.

Well quite frankly yes! Unless I'm missing something here and your about to drip feed that you're legal counsel, in some capacity!!! Regardless of your feelings, the law is there to protect (even) you, believe it or not.

I've found some of the attitudes expressed almost as horrifying as what happened to the child, tbh. It seems that there really are some people who think that those with learning disabilities should just be locked away and forgotten about like they were up until the 1960s or thereabouts.

Maybe it's because, unlike me, they're too young to remember how awful that was and how many people suffered completely unnecessarily because of it, like the girl who joined my primary school at 9, having spent the first few years of FTE in what was then known as a "school for the educationally sub-normal".

It's a hateful attitude and, while I understand people are shocked and may not have really thought through the implications of what they are saying, it's still appalling. And I wonder if they will change their views if, for example, tthis turns out to be due to some sort of institutional failing on the part of the care provider.

I'd be gobsmacked if there aren't strict conditions attached to his bail, I'd eat all the words I've ever spoken if he's free to go out and about with minimal supervision.

@ByLemonLeader , that is truly appalling, but again, this is a failure of risk management and/or assessment.

In the LD services run by the organisation I worked for, no-one would have been allowed to hold a discussion on something so distressing on their own with the resident in a private room.

I can see now why that organisation has won a whole raft of awards for the standard of care they deliver, and why their staff spend a lot of time on risk assessment and risk management.

Why would taking an adult man requiring two carers be on a trip to the zoo?

It seems to me to be fraught with problems before you start. Kids running everywhere, people milling about, busy public loos. Wild exotic dangerous animals. Complex risk assesments.

Surely, if it was felt he needed a change of scene, a walk round a local country park during the day on a quiet day would be better. Less stressful all round. And plenty of wildlife.

Not necessarily:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trialofthefacts
A possible outcome here.

As has been pointed out many, many times on this thread. Needing two carers is not necessarily due to the person being violent. It could be for multiple reasons.

For the same reasons most of us pay loads to go to the zoo over the local country park

If you look back on the thread people have suggested there's lots of reasons why someone might have two carers. Its can be simply to do with a no lone working policy, or because of toileting needs

Our local zoo is fairly well spaced out and probably less busy then other local attractions. Less worrisome then our local tesco for example

People with learning disabilities can have wants and preferences like the rest of us. They might love animals, or the train that runs around there.

@randomchap you are missing my point, deliberately or otherwise.

This man was put by people supposed to keep him and the public safe, into a day out which was inappropriate from the start.

He cannot be questioned by the police, has no idea what he is doing or has done. It begs the question why the zoo. Why leave a place of routine and safety for this man, put him under stress? Research? Because it wasnt for his benefit.

We definitely know he has never thrown anyone into a crocodile pit before.

Look, I am absolutely not saying it's not possible mistakes weren't made with risk assessments (e.g. Jonty Bravery and the Southport killer, displayed obvious and massive risks beforehand which were not dealt with properly). However, there is just no way someone who has actually committed such* *an extreme act is walking around free. I think the posters who suggest he was literally just returned to his existing living arrangements know very well it's not true.

There are autistic people and people with LDs (about 2000 of them) locked up in horrendous psychiatric cells / what used to be Assessment Treatment Units who have not committed any crimes.

People with learning disabilities are still people. Why shouldn't they be allowed to go to the zoo.

In this case something has gone horrifically wrong, that needs to be investigated.

That links leads to nothing!

Unfortunately your link is broken - here's a brief-ish summary - apologies for the AI which has invaded my google

A trial of the facts is a legal process to determine whether a defendant committed the alleged act when they are unfit to plead, without establishing criminal guilt.
Purpose and Legal Basis
A trial of the facts is used in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland when a court determines that a defendant is unfit to stand trial due to mental incapacity or serious health issues

Unlike a standard criminal trial, it does not determine guilt or innocence. Instead, it focuses solely on whether the defendant carried out the alleged act

The process ensures that any restrictions on the defendant’s liberty are justified by evidence of their actions, even if their intention was impaired by delusion or incapacity

The procedure is governed by the Criminal Procedure (Insanity and Unfitness to Plead) Act 1991 and, in Northern Ireland, by Article 49A of the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986
How the Process Works
During a trial of the facts:

The prosecution presents evidence against the defendant before a judge and jury, similar to a normal trial

The defendant does not participate actively and may not even be present in court

Witnesses can be called, and the defendant’s lawyers may question witnesses and challenge evidence

The jury decides only whether the defendant committed the act, not whether they are criminally guilty

The defendant cannot be convicted, but they can be acquitted if the jury finds they did not commit the act

Possible Outcomes
If the jury finds that the defendant committed the act, the court may impose one of several measures instead of a traditional sentence:

Hospital order for treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983
Supervision or guardianship orders requiring compliance with conditions and treatment in the community
Absolute discharge if no suitable order is applicable Wikipedia+2
These measures are designed to protect the public while addressing the defendant’s medical or mental health needs.
Notable Examples
In 2018, Ivor Bell, a former IRA leader with vascular dementia, was found unfit to plead in a case regarding the disappearance of Jean McConville Wikipedia.
More recently, in 2026, a trial of the facts was conducted for Eleanor Donaldson, who was deemed unfit to plead in her husband Jeffrey Donaldson’s case Wikipedia.
The process has also been used in high-profile cases involving politicians, such as former Labour MP Margaret Moran and Lord Greville Janner, to determine the facts even when the accused could not participate www.thedetail.tv.
Key Distinction
The trial of the facts differs from a criminal trial in that it does not assign criminal responsibility or lead to imprisonment. Its primary function is to establish the truth of the allegations and allow the court to impose appropriate protective or supervisory measures based on the defendant’s actions

It may well have been.

Learning disabled people do still like zoos, animals, theme parks, water parks.

Our local zoo is Chester, my son stands in the car park and looks at the elephants and likes the door to the bat cave. He spends ages at the giraffes. It is one of his safe spaces, and regardless, he can manage new spaces provided he’s got his safe people, ear defenders, etc etc.

It’s not as black and white as “taking them out distresses them,” they still have interests and hobbies.

We have no idea if this person benefited from the zoo or not. Not all people with ld want quiet, some want adventures.

Locally to me for example there is a nightclub night for people with ld. Of course for some people it might be a nightmare, but others love it.

You're making assumptions on info that isnt out there.

We know that some people find the zoo stressful but others dont

We have no idea if they have a history of violence and what kind.

We have no idea why they have two carers

My feel is that an unsecured crocodile enclosure (or any unsecured enclosure containing dangerous animals) is not a suitable place for an adult with complex learning difficulties that doesn't understand the consequences of their actions, unless they are restrained. Here is a photo of the enclosure from Google.

It may well be that it was completely unsuitable for this man, which would be a risk assessment failure (which does happen).

I wouldn't take my own children there as with one of them there is almost 100% chance he would try to climb the railing and with the other there is a maybe 10% chance of the same (still not nothing).

Not all people with LD are the same though, some are really passive. There are severely learning disabled children I would take through there.

If someone with a learning disability who has done something without intention and understanding is to be considered a "monster" then we need to consider all those who do things knowing they may do harm to others, also to be monsters.

For example just considering driving all those who drink alcohol and drive, all those who drive cars that are not road worthy, all those that speed, all those that use their phone when driving, all those that drive when they are medically unfit to do so etc.

They had travelled from Norfolk so not local and therefore maybe an 'unknown unknown' in the risk assessment