P (Vulnerable Adult: withdrawal of Application)

The inherent jurisdiction to protect a vulnerable adult is not unbounded. Where protective measures are unlikely to alter the adult’s situation, continuing orders may become disproportionate and unlawfully interfere with liberty.

A vulnerable adult’s refusal to accept support does not necessarily discharge the local authority’s statutory responsibilities where the refusal is affected by undue influence. However, Article 3 requires a real and immediate risk of treatment reaching the requisite severity, together with a failure by the State to take reasonably available measures capable of avoiding or mitigating that risk. Destitution alone is insufficient. Where those requirements are not met, or reasonable measures have already been taken, further residence or contact restrictions may be unjustified.

The local authority invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction concerning P, a 29-year-old vulnerable adult believed to be under the influence and control of her father, Y. P had been accommodated separately from him under protective orders since October 2023.

The local authority concluded that continued placement was disproportionate and sought to withdraw its application. P, represented by the Official Solicitor, and P’s mother, X, supported that course, although X remained concerned about P’s safety. The court therefore considered whether ending the protective framework would breach P’s rights under Articles 3, 5 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and whether the local authority had discharged its statutory obligations.

1. Disposition. The court approved the local authority’s withdrawal of its application. It confirmed that the proposed support and accommodation arrangements appropriately discharged the local authority’s statutory obligations. It made no further orders regulating P’s residence or constraining her choices.
2. P was a vulnerable adult who lacked capacity, for the purposes of the vulnerable adult jurisdiction, to decide matters concerning residence and care because of the continuing undue influence of Y. Her refusal to engage with support did not necessarily discharge the local authority’s statutory responsibilities under section 11 of the Care Act 2014.
3. The positive obligation under Article 3 required consideration of four matters: a real and immediate risk; ill-treatment of sufficient severity to fall within Article 3; knowledge, actual or constructive, by the public authority; and failure to take measures within its powers which, judged reasonably, might have been expected to avoid the risk.
4. On the evidence and applying the cited authorities, the risks of financial and psychological abuse and possible destitution did not establish a real and immediate risk of degrading treatment. Destitution alone was insufficient. Alternatively, the local authority had recently taken all reasonable steps available, including bringing proceedings and providing residential accommodation. P had consistently refused meaningful engagement with offered support.
5. Further protective orders were unlikely to manifestly alter P’s situation. The inherent jurisdiction was therefore not a lawful basis for continuing them. Their continuation would unjustifiably and disproportionately interfere with P’s Article 5(1) rights. The court endorsed the proposed £500 prepaid card, information pack and arrangements concerning future benefits applications.

First instance decision. The judgment records earlier interlocutory orders made by HHJ Burrows, including authorisation of P’s accommodation and later findings concerning capacity and Article 8, but this was not an appeal from those orders.