A, Re

Under Children Act 1989, s 25, the court may make a secure accommodation order where the child is likely to injure herself or others if kept in other accommodation. Identification of a specific secure unit is not an absolute precondition to making the order. In an exceptional and urgent case, the court may make an interim order in general terms, leaving placement to the local authority in consultation with the Children’s Guardian. This is particularly so where secure accommodation is the only presently available means of protection and no psychiatric disposal is available.

A, aged 13, was accommodated by a local authority under s 20 of the Children Act 1989. She displayed severe and dangerous behaviour, including repeated self-harm, assaults on staff and threats to others. A local CAMHS assessment concluded that she did not meet the criteria in s 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983 for admission and detention for assessment. The local authority therefore applied under s 25 of the Children Act 1989 for secure accommodation.

No secure unit had yet been identified, although urgent efforts to find one continued. The central issue was whether the court could make a secure accommodation order without a specific placement being available.

1. The threshold in s 25 of the Children Act 1989 was satisfied. On the evidence, if A remained in any other description of accommodation, she was likely to injure herself or other persons.

2. A specific secure placement is conventionally identified before a secure accommodation order is made, but s 25 contains no such absolute requirement. The absence of an identified unit therefore did not deprive the court of jurisdiction to make the order.

3. The circumstances were exceptional and urgent. A was at serious risk in ordinary residential accommodation, the staff were unable to contain her for much longer, and a psychiatric placement was not available on the expert evidence. Secure accommodation was presently the only realistic means of protecting her, subject to circumstances changing.

4. The court accordingly made an interim secure accommodation order for two weeks in general terms. The local authority was to continue seeking an appropriate secure unit and, in consultation with the Children’s Guardian, to place A when one was identified. The matter was reserved for review by the judge if possible.

5. Although a child would ordinarily be informed of an application concerning her liberty and given an opportunity to attend, the court accepted the Children’s Guardian’s view that attendance would probably be seriously disturbing for A. Her attendance could be reconsidered at the review hearing.