Z (A Child : DOLS: Lack of Secure Placement)

Where a child requires a deprivation of liberty but no suitable registered secure placement is available, the statutory safeguards applicable to secure accommodation remain relevant. The court must consider the statutory criteria, the child’s welfare and proportionality, and whether any realistic alternative would be safer or less restrictive. A temporary, highly restrictive arrangement may be authorised under the inherent jurisdiction where it is necessary to prevent significant harm and represents the best available option. The arrangement must remain a holding position, subject to continuing searches for suitable regulated accommodation and prompt review.

The local authority applied under the inherent jurisdiction for authority to deprive Z, aged thirteen, of liberty. Z was subject to an interim care order and a secure accommodation order, but the existing secure unit could no longer meet Z’s needs and was due to end the placement. Despite extensive searches, no suitable secure placement was available.

The proposed contingency involved placing Z in a rented house with continuous staffing, locked doors, restrictions on movement and possessions, and restraint to prevent escape or harm. The central issues were whether the arrangement constituted a deprivation of liberty, whether the statutory secure-accommodation criteria and welfare requirements were satisfied, and whether the proposed restrictions were necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. The court granted permission under section 100(4) of the Children Act and authorised the proposed deprivation of liberty under the inherent jurisdiction. The order was to be treated as a temporary holding arrangement and reviewed within 14 days.
2. The absence of an available registered secure placement did not displace the safeguards and structure associated with section 25. The court considered the criteria identified in Re B [2020] 2 WLR 568, including whether the child was looked after, whether the accommodation was secure accommodation, whether there was a risk of absconding and significant harm or injury, whether any necessary approval existed, whether the order promoted welfare, and whether it was proportionate.
3. Z was looked after by the local authority, and the proposed regime plainly amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Z had a history of absconding and was likely to abscond from less restrictive accommodation. The risks of self-harm and harm to others also satisfied the relevant statutory criteria.
4. Returning Z to the parents was not a safe or realistic alternative. No creative or less restrictive arrangement had been identified which would prevent unacceptable risks of escape, self-harm or harm to others.
5. The proposed placement was sub-optimal and lacked the benefits of properly regulated secure accommodation, specialist staff, education and therapeutic support. Nevertheless, welfare and proportionality were assessed against the options actually available. The contingency plan safeguarded and promoted Z’s welfare better than the alternatives, was necessary to keep Z and others physically safe, and was proportionate in the exceptional circumstances.
6. The judge endorsed the concerns expressed in Re S (Child in Care: Unregistered Placement) [2020] [EWHC] 1012 about children being placed in unregistered settings. The local authority was required to continue searching for an appropriate placement, and the case was to return before a High Court judge if further issues arose.