An autistic teenager who threw a six-year-old boy from the Tate Modern was not considered a risk to others at the time, despite previously assaulting police and a restaurant worker and hitting support staff with a brick, a report has found. Jonty Bravery was 17 when he told supervisors he was going to visit a local shopping centre on 4 August 2019, but instead travelled to the central London art gallery where, after lying in wait, he threw a young French tourist from the 10th storey viewing platform. The child survived, but has undergone round-the-clock treatment since, while Bravery, who told onlookers that social services were to blame for the incident, is serving a 15-year minimum prison term for attempted murder. A serious case review into Bravery, seen by the PA Media news agency, highlights a series of violent incidents in the two years before, as well as other examples of troubling behaviour including putting faeces in his mother’s makeup brushes and threatening to kill members of the public. But it also concluded that Bravery’s violent behaviour had reduced at the time of the Tate Modern attack, while he was living in a bespoke placement with two-to-one care funded by Hammersmith and Fulham borough council and the clinical commissioning group. The report states: “There was no recent evidence that he [Bravery] presented a risk to other children or adults unknown to him. It was in this context that he was progressively given more freedoms, which saw him able to visit central London unaccompanied on the day of the incident.” But the review also found that, while Bravery’s case was characterised by “appropriate efforts by professionals from across agencies to access assessment and treatment” for him, those efforts “were stymied due to the lack of services, placements and provisions that were suitable for his needs as an autistic young person with a coexisting conduct disorder diagnosis”. It makes seven findings, including a lack of residential treatment options for young people with high-risk behaviours, emerging personality disorder and coexisting autism, and disincentives for support staff to escalate service gaps, creating an unmet need on behalf of the service user. The serious case review said Bravery was diagnosed with autism at the age of five, but that there was a clear “lack of join-up between different elements of support that were being provided to [Bravery] and his family”, and that he was not known to children’s social care or child and adolescent mental health services (Camhs) until more than a decade later. Bravery, who was not diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder until he was arrested for the Tate Modern attack, spent various periods of time being moved from psychiatric intensive care units, specialist residential schools and hotels from the age of 15 as his behaviour became more troubling. A year before the Tate Modern attack, Bravery called police to his flat, saying he was thinking of killing people, during which he assaulted an officer. The following month he made two claims to support staff that he wanted to go out in the community “so that he could assault a member of the public and be arrested and put in prison”. Staff believed he was making these statements to provoke a reaction from the support worker. The review said: “It is evident that professionals working with [Bravery] at this time did not think he would act on these statements, which were seen as attention-seeking behaviour. “This was because all of [Bravery’s] actions were viewed as products of his autistic behaviour and there was no consideration of these threats in a context of conduct disorder.” It added: “The mismatch between [Bravery’s] needs and available provision ran through the whole of [his] case.”