A Local Authority v S

A child looked after by a local authority may be placed or kept in secure accommodation where either statutory criterion in section 25 of the Children Act 1989 is satisfied. Where the child is likely to abscond and suffer significant harm, or is likely to injure herself or others in other accommodation, the court must make the authorising order. Alternatively, the inherent jurisdiction may authorise a deprivation of liberty, but only where it is lawful, necessary and proportionate, and represents the least interference required to address the identified risk. Any authorisation should last no longer than the minimum period of genuine benefit.

The local authority applied for authority to keep S, aged 17, in secure accommodation. S was accommodated under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 and had a substantial history of absconding, substance misuse, self-harm, aggression and threats of suicide. Earlier residential placements had been unable to keep her or others safe.

An urgent holding order had authorised secure accommodation for a short period. The issue was whether the statutory criteria under section 25 were satisfied or, alternatively, whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction in accordance with Article 5 of the Convention.

1. Application granted. The court authorised S’s continued placement in secure accommodation for one month.
2. Both statutory criteria in section 25 of the Children Act 1989 were satisfied. S had a history of absconding and was likely to abscond from other accommodation, with a resulting likelihood of significant harm. If kept in other accommodation, she was also likely to injure herself or others.
3. Section 25(4) required the court, once satisfied that the criteria were met, to make an order authorising secure accommodation and specifying the maximum period. The court therefore had a duty to make the order if the application properly fell under section 25.
4. S was a child looked after by the local authority. Her accommodation under section 20(3), as a child aged 16 or over whose welfare was considered likely to be seriously prejudiced without accommodation, appeared to bring her within section 25.
5. If section 25 did not apply, the inherent jurisdiction provided an alternative basis. Following the guidance in Re PS (An Adult) [2007] EWHC 623, a secure placement had to comply with Article 5. The deprivation of liberty had to be in accordance with law, necessary and proportionate, and the least interference required to address the perceived risk.
6. Those requirements were met. Nevertheless, the order was limited to one month, being the minimum period likely to allow professionals to undertake the proposed psychological and psychiatric assessment and provide effective intervention.

First-instance decision. No prior appellate decision was stated in the judgment.