Blackpool Borough Council v HT & Ors

When authorising a deprivation of a child’s liberty under the inherent jurisdiction, the court must first determine whether the proposed arrangements engage Art 5 and then decide whether authorisation is in the child’s best interests. The absence of an alternative placement is relevant but not determinative. A sub-optimal placement may be authorised briefly where it keeps the child safe, risks remain high and no better option is available. A certified application under the Mental Health Act 1983 does not itself require Tier 4 CAMHS admission. Admission remains subject to an access assessment, and judicial intervention in resource-allocation decisions is extremely limited.

Blackpool Borough Council sought a further extension of an order authorising restrictions on HT, a 17-year-old subject to care proceedings and placed in an unregistered placement. The restrictions included continuous supervision, physical restraint and preventing her from leaving. HT had significant behavioural, self-harm and suicide risks, but no alternative placement had been found.

Although two medical practitioners and an approved mental health professional supported an application under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, the Tier 4 access assessment concluded that admission was inappropriate and community support was preferable. The issues were whether the restrictions constituted a deprivation of liberty and whether their continuation was lawful and in HT’s best interests.

1. Outcome. The court extended the deprivation of liberty safeguards order until midnight on 20 May 2022, with directions for updated evidence concerning the placement search, registration and multi-agency review.
2. The arrangements constituted a deprivation of liberty for Art 5. HT did not consent, was subject to continuous supervision and control, and was not free to leave. The court applied Storck v Germany (2006) 43 EHRR 6 and Cheshire West and Chester v P [2014] AC 896.
3. The restrictions were in HT’s best interests, necessary and proportionate for a further short period. The placement was sub-optimal, but it was keeping HT safe, risks remained high, and no alternative placement had been identified.
4. The absence of an alternative placement was relevant but not determinative. Welfare had to be assessed holistically and realistically. A temporary compromise could be acceptable where no better option existed, but resource scarcity could not reduce the inquiry to bare necessity. The court distinguished cases where the placement itself caused harm.
5. Certification by two medical practitioners of a section 2 application did not itself require provision of a Tier 4 CAMHS bed. Admission remained subject to the National Referral and Access Process and an Access Assessment.
6. The court would not ordinarily review a decision not to allocate medical resources. There were no grounds to invite the NHS Trust to revisit its access assessment.
7. The judgment stressed the need for local authorities, NHS bodies and other agencies to co-operate in arranging care for children with complex needs.