Lancashire County Council v G (No 2) (Continuing Unavailability of Secure Accommodation) (Rev 1)

Under the inherent jurisdiction, the court may authorise a deprivation of a child’s liberty where the arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty for Art 5 purposes and authorisation is in the child’s best interests.

An unregulated placement may be authorised in exceptional circumstances where no suitable secure or regulated placement is available and refusal would expose the child to a very high risk of serious or fatal harm. Such authorisation must remain subject to close monitoring and periodic review. The court should not grant an open-ended authorisation merely because the local authority has not yet found a suitable placement.

This was a further application by Lancashire County Council concerning the continued placement of G, aged 16, in unregulated accommodation. On 23 October 2020, the court had authorised the deprivation of G’s liberty in that placement in Lancashire CC v G (Unavailability of Secure Accommodation) [2020] EWHC 2828 (Fam).

Nearly a month later, no secure placement or regulated non-secure placement was available anywhere in the United Kingdom. G remained at high risk of serious self-harm or suicide, while the current placement was sub-optimal, unregulated and unwilling to seek registration. The central issues were whether G continued to be deprived of her liberty and whether continued authorisation remained in her best interests.

1. Continuation authorised. The court authorised the continued deprivation of G’s liberty at the existing unregulated placement. It remained the only available option capable of keeping her safe, despite serious reservations about its suitability.
2. The restrictions imposed included continuous three-to-one supervision, locked doors where necessary, escort whenever G left the placement, reasonable and proportionate measures to prevent or reverse absconding, proportionate restraint when distressed, removal of access to her mobile phone and a ten-minute waking watch during the night. G was unable to consent, was subject to continuous supervision and control, and was not free to leave. The arrangements therefore constituted a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5 of the ECHR.
3. Authorisation under the inherent jurisdiction remained permissible because it was, on balance, in G’s best interests. The court considered the grave risk of discharge into the community, the absence of any suitable alternative, the multi-disciplinary risk-management arrangements, ongoing mental-health assessment and continuing efforts to secure an appropriate placement.
4. The court emphasised that an unregulated placement fell outside the statutory regime under s 25 of the Children Act 1989. It was necessary to monitor closely whether continued authorisation remained justified. An open-ended authorisation was inappropriate, and the matter was listed for review in 14 days.

Not stated in the judgment.