Lancashire County Council v Claire X

Where a child is deprived of liberty, the court must ensure that the arrangements satisfy Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Detention justified by mental disorder requires appropriate treatment directed towards that disorder, with a real prospect of eventual release. Shortfalls in mental-health provision may make prolonged detention unjustifiable, even where immediate restrictions are necessary to prevent fatal or catastrophic self-harm. The court may nevertheless authorise a care plan where the available arrangements show a sufficiently credible direction of travel, subject to continuing review and the provision of adequate information about care, assessment, treatment and education.

The court considered the thirty-first hearing concerning a fifteen-year-old child, CX, who was subject to a care order and had repeatedly engaged in potentially fatal self-harm. She had been continuously controlled and supervised throughout 2023, except when she escaped, and the local authority sought approval of a further care plan involving continued deprivation of liberty.

The central issues were whether the restrictions amounted to a deprivation of liberty, whether the detention complied with Article 5, and whether the proposed placement and mental-health provision were sufficiently appropriate. The judge also considered the lack of stable treatment, education and long-term planning.

1. Deprivation of liberty. The restrictions imposed on CX went well beyond those normally expected for a healthy fifteen-year-old child. Applying the test in the Cheshire West case, including the modified comparator for a child, the arrangements constituted a deprivation of liberty requiring authorisation by the court under Article 5.
2. Article 5 compliance. The court had to be satisfied in conscience that the detention complied with Article 5(1), particularly Article 5(1)(e), concerning the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind. Where detention is justified by mental disorder, appropriate treatment must be available and directed towards that disorder.
3. Therapeutic provision. In Rooman v Belgium [2019] ECHR 105, the European Court of Human Rights made clear that the court must consider both the period of confinement and whether therapy measures give the detained person a real chance of release. CX had received little or no therapy directed to her underlying mental-health difficulties for most of the preceding year. The judge expressed serious concern that detention without treatment might become unjustifiable under the Convention.
4. Authorisation and review. Despite those concerns, the developing plan, including a proposed solo placement and continuing involvement from CAMHS, provided sufficient justification to authorise the care plan and further deprivation of liberty pending review. The local authority was invited to provide a concise outline of the services available at the proposed placement. The court indicated that it could approve the move and care plan on the papers if the information was adequate and the Guardian and court were satisfied.

The judgment was a further first-instance decision in ongoing proceedings. The judge stated that the factual background was contained in an earlier judgment, LCC v Claire X [2023] EWHC 2667.