A Local Authority v Y

The inherent jurisdiction may protect a vulnerable adult who retains mental capacity where coercion, undue influence, constraint or other circumstances impair free choice or genuine consent. It may be exercised on an interim basis while the relevant circumstances are investigated.

Statutory adult social-care duties remain relevant after a young person reaches adulthood. Assessment duties are broadly engaged, and disengagement or apparent non-engagement does not of itself extinguish duties to assess, support or safeguard. Preventive duties apply to all adults, including those without eligible needs. Radicalisation cases require an individualised, bespoke package of protection and support rather than a universal legal framework.

The proceedings concerned Y, a young person at serious risk of travelling to Syria to join jihadist groups. He had previously been made a ward of court and protected under the inherent jurisdiction. That protection would end when he reached 18.

The court considered what statutory and discretionary support could remain available after that transition, including adult social-care duties, safeguarding, the Prevent and Channel arrangements, education and care-leaver-style support. The central issue was how Y’s protection and support should continue when wardship and his status as a child in need ceased.

1. Inherent jurisdiction. The court relied on Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity: Marriage) [2005] EWHC 2942 (Fam). The inherent jurisdiction is not confined to adults lacking mental capacity. It may protect a capacitous vulnerable adult who is, or is reasonably believed to be, subject to constraint, coercion, undue influence or another circumstance that prevents free choice or genuine consent. The jurisdiction may be exercised while proper inquiries are made.
2. Adult social care. Under the Care Act 2014, section 8 requires assessment where it appears that an adult may have needs for care and support, regardless of whether the authority considers that the needs will be eligible or of the person’s financial circumstances. Section 58 provides for transitional assessment where a child is likely to have adult care and support needs and consents. The court emphasised that disengagement or falsified engagement does not negate the duty to provide appropriate support.
3. The eligibility criteria in section 13 do not exhaust the authority’s responsibilities. Section 19 may permit needs to be met despite the eligibility criteria not being satisfied. Section 2 imposes preventive responsibilities in relation to all adults, including adults without current needs and adults whose needs are ineligible or otherwise unmet. Section 42 safeguarding duties apply where the statutory conditions are satisfied, including care and support needs, risk of abuse or neglect, and inability to protect oneself as a result of those needs.
4. Prevent and Channel. Sections 26 and 36 to 41 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 impose duties concerning prevention and support for people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism. Support under section 36(4)(b) depends on the necessary consent, but withdrawal or refusal of consent engages the further assessment functions in section 36(4)(e). Support need not cease immediately, although it may later be discontinued.
5. Disposition. There is no one-size-fits-all legal response to radicalisation. The appropriate framework and services depend on the individual circumstances. The court approved Brighton and Hove City Council’s bespoke package for Y, designed to continue support into adulthood and to avoid disadvantage arising from the wardship route.

This was a first-instance decision of the High Court (Family Division). The judgment refers to earlier decisions concerning Y and to other authorities on the inherent jurisdiction and the appropriate legal framework, but no appeal from the present decision is stated.