AK, (A Child), R. (on the application of) v The London Borough of Islington & Anor

When assessing after-care for a vulnerable child under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the court must scrutinise the assessment and care plan with care while respecting the decision-maker’s role. The plan must identify the child’s needs, analyse their nature and severity, and state precisely what is to be done, by whom and by when.

A descriptive document containing broad aspirations or plans for future assessment is insufficient. Where a local authority and clinical commissioning group work jointly, the statutory-guidance standard applicable to the local authority must govern the process. The Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice must be followed with sufficient rigour, or any departure must be explained. A defective discharge plan entitled the claimant to a mandatory order for a fresh assessment.

AK, a 16-year-old with autism and serious mental-health difficulties, sought judicial review of the London Borough of Islington and the North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group. She alleged that her assessment and discharge planning under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were inadequate when she left hospital for a specialist residential placement.

The claim also included an issue under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 concerning the family’s housing. The central questions were whether the discharge assessment and care plan complied with the Code of Practice and whether the housing complaint disclosed an arguable public-law failure.

1. Section 117 and the Code. The duty to provide or arrange after-care applied jointly to the defendants. Where a local authority and clinical commissioning group worked together for a vulnerable child, the statutory-guidance standard applicable to the local authority was the applicable standard for the joint process. The Code therefore had to be followed with sufficient rigour; no reason for departure had been given.
2. Level of scrutiny. The court had to scrutinise the assessment and plan with care, using an objective and evidence-based approach, without substituting its own judgment or engaging in nit-picking. The assessment had to identify and evaluate the nature, extent and severity of the child’s needs and enable a plan to state precisely how those needs would be met.
3. Defects in the DCPA. The discharge CPA and summary was completed on the day of discharge and did not provide a sufficiently precise bridge between hospital and residential care. It contained broad aspirations concerning mental health, sensory overload and education, but lacked practical detail about daily treatment, support, risk management, responsibility and timing. It incorrectly recorded that there were no concerns about intellectual level, despite the cognitive assessment and repeated evidence of educational difficulties. The missing full risk assessment was also a serious concern.
4. The DCPA did not comply with paragraphs 34.3, 34.13 and 34.19 of the Code and was unlawful. AK was entitled to a mandatory order requiring a fresh assessment.
5. The section 17 housing ground lacked a targeted unlawful decision and realistic prospects of success. Children’s Services had supported the rehousing application and a plan was operating through Housing Services. Permission on that ground was refused.