Y (A Minor : wardship)

Wardship may provide an appropriate protective jurisdiction for a minor facing an exceptional and specific risk, including threatened removal from England and Wales for the purpose of entering a dangerous environment. The court must assess whether the intervention is proportionate to the risk, balancing the child’s rights and protective interests under the Human Rights Act. Any intervention must remain confined to what the risk requires and be reviewed regularly so that the child’s rights remain protected if circumstances change. Effective protection against radicalisation requires coordinated action by the relevant local authority, education, health, social-care, police and community agencies.

Brighton & Hove City Council applied for permission to commence wardship proceedings, or alternatively to invoke the inherent jurisdiction, concerning Y, aged 16. Y was considered vulnerable to radicalisation because of his family circumstances, the deaths of close relatives and a family friend while fighting in Syria, and his unexplained absences from school. The authority was concerned that arrangements had been made for him to travel to Dubai, from where onward travel to Libya or Syria might be easier. The court also considered Y’s mother’s ability to protect him and the existing police-bail conditions. The issues were whether Y should be joined and whether protective orders, including wardship, were justified and proportionate.

1. Applications granted. Y was joined as a respondent. The court granted permission for the local authority to bring wardship proceedings and/or seek protection under the inherent jurisdiction, with further specific protective measures contemplated by draft order.
2. Wardship, although historically rooted, remains available in modern child-protection cases involving extreme circumstances. It may be particularly useful where urgent medical treatment, forced marriage or threatened child abduction is involved. A ward may not be removed from England and Wales without the court’s permission, and police assistance may be obtained to prevent removal.
3. The proposed intervention was proportionate to the specific risk identified. In assessing proportionality under the Human Rights Act, the court was required to balance competing rights and interests. The protective obligation owed to a minor weighed materially in favour of intervention, particularly where the child was vulnerable to serious harm and ultimately required protection from his own actions.
4. There are no completely effective measures to prevent travel from the United Kingdom, but removal of a minor’s passport was identified as the most effective practical measure in the circumstances. The scope of intervention had to be monitored and reviewed at regular intervals, so that Y’s rights could receive greater protection if the balance changed.
5. Protection from radicalisation is more effective when based on a multi-agency approach involving local authorities, education, health, social services, children and youth services, the police and the local community.