F (A Minor : secure accommodation resources)

An order under Children Act 1989, section 25, is a measure of last resort. The court must be satisfied that the statutory predictive conditions are met and that no suitable alternative accommodation or support package can protect the child and others. The assessment is necessarily forward-looking, but recent events may provide powerful evidence of likely harm. A local authority must make genuine, sustained efforts to secure suitable accommodation, including creative alternatives where appropriate. Systemic scarcity of secure placements does not remove the court’s duty to determine the application, nor the public authorities’ responsibility to address an unsafe impasse.

F, aged 14, was subject to a care order in favour of the London Borough of Southwark. He had absconded from residential care and was later found in circumstances indicating serious vulnerability and involvement in dangerous activity. Southwark applied under section 25 of the Children Act 1989 for secure accommodation. Pending a secure placement, the court had authorised a deprivation of liberty in a residential unit with enhanced supervision.

The application came before the court because no suitable secure bed could be obtained. The central issues were whether the statutory conditions for secure accommodation were met and how the court should respond when the accommodation required to protect the child and the public was unavailable.

1. Application granted in principle. The court was satisfied that secure accommodation was necessary. F was a danger to himself, other vulnerable young people, the public and those responsible for his care. The matter was listed for continuing review because no suitable placement had yet been secured.
2. Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 imposes a predictive test. The court had to consider whether F had a history of absconding and was likely to abscond from other accommodation, whether absconding would expose him to significant harm, or whether remaining in other accommodation would be likely to result in injury to himself or others.
3. The order was a significant deprivation of liberty and a measure of last resort. Following London Borough of Barking and Dagenham v SS [2014] EWHC 4436 (Fam), the court had to consider not only conventional placements but also creative alternative support packages. The evidence showed that Southwark had made sustained efforts to identify a secure unit and that the present residential placement was unsafe and inadequate.
4. The predictive nature of the statutory test did not prevent the court from relying on recent events. An overnight incident involving attempts to obtain knives, together with F’s absconding, offending history and dangerous circumstances, provided compelling evidence that the statutory risks were real.
5. F’s consent was unnecessary: Re W (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 804. The absence of an available secure bed created an impasse rather than an answer to the application. The judge directed that the judgment be provided to the Minister of State for Education and ordered continuing attendance by senior responsible officials. The judgment was delivered in open court in the public interest, following Re X (A Child) No 3 [2017] EWHC 2036 (Fam).

not stated in the judgment.