Williams v Hackney London Borough Council

Key legal principles: The Supreme Court analysed the limits of a local authority’s power to provide accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 once an initial period of police protection under section 46 has expired. The judgment emphasises that parental responsibility is central: a local authority cannot remove or continue to detain a child against the will of a parent who is looking after the child without lawful compulsion (for example an emergency protection order or police protection). Section 20(7) bars accommodation where a person with parental responsibility who is willing and able to provide or arrange accommodation objects; section 20(8) allows any person with parental responsibility to remove the child from accommodation provided under section 20 at any time.

The court held that delegation of parental responsibility to a local authority may be effected by voluntary agreement but need not in every case be fully informed; nevertheless, delegation must be real and voluntary. Where a child moves from lawful police protection into section 20 accommodation, the legal focus is on whether the parent has objected (s20(7)) or unequivocally requested return (s20(8)).

Application to these facts: the court concluded that the parents had not unequivocally withdrawn cooperation or demanded the immediate return of their children after police protection ended, and so the Council had a lawful basis under section 20 to continue accommodation. The appellants’ Human Rights Act claims therefore should have been dismissed.

This was an appeal by the parents of eight children who were taken into police protection and then accommodated by the local authority. The parents sued the Council for damages for breach of their rights under article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and for various torts and statutory causes of action, relying principally on the contention that after the expiry of the 72-hour police protection period the local authority had no lawful basis under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 to continue to accommodate the children.

(i) Nature of the claim: damages for breach of Convention rights (article 8) under the Human Rights Act 1998, together with claims in negligence, misfeasance in public office and discrimination (the latter causes were dismissed at first instance and not sustained in the appeal to this court).

(ii) Issues framed: whether section 20 accommodation after expiry of section 46 police protection was lawful; the role of parental consent or delegation under section 20; the meaning and operation of subsections 20(7) and 20(8); whether bail conditions prevented parents from providing accommodation; and whether any interference with family life was justified as proportionate under article 8(2).

(iii) Court’s reasoning: the Supreme Court stressed that parental responsibility is the starting point and that a local authority has no power to insist on removing or retaining a child who is being looked after by a parent unless it has lawful compulsion. Section 20(7) restricts the authority from accommodating when a parent who is willing and able to provide or arrange accommodation objects; section 20(8) gives parents the unconditional right to remove a child from section 20 accommodation. Delegation of parental responsibility can be voluntary without full information, but must be real. In this case the Court found that the parents did not unequivocally withdraw cooperation nor demand immediate return; the solicitors’ letters signalled collaborative cooperation and an offer to continue accommodation for a limited period to allow planning rather than an unequivocal withdrawal of delegation. The persistent bail conditions were relevant to proportionality but did not of themselves render the accommodation unlawful. The Court therefore concluded there was a lawful basis for the continued accommodation and that the Human Rights Act claims should have been dismissed.

The judgment also surveys an extensive body of family and first instance authority criticising misuse of section 20 and underlines the importance of clear information and good practice by local authorities when accommodating children under the section.

Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that there was a lawful basis for the children’s continued accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 because the parents had not unequivocally objected or demanded immediate return after expiry of the police protection; section 20(7) bars accommodation only where a person with parental responsibility who is both willing and able to provide or arrange accommodation objects, and section 20(8) preserves the parent’s right to remove a child. The court emphasised parental responsibility, the proper scope of delegation, and good practice in informing parents, but concluded on the facts that the Council acted within the law.

First instance: Sir Robert Francis QC (sitting as a deputy High Court Judge) [2015] EWHC 2629 (QB) — judge found breach of article 8 and awarded damages. Court of Appeal: [2017] EWCA Civ 26 — allowed the Council’s appeal, holding there was a lawful basis for accommodation. Supreme Court: [2018] UKSC 37 — dismissed the parents’ appeal, concluding there was a lawful basis for continued section 20 accommodation (for reasons differing in part from the Court of Appeal).