The Local Authority v A

The High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to authorise restrictions amounting to a deprivation of liberty for a child under 16 placed in an unregistered children’s home where imperative conditions of necessity exist. The jurisdiction authorises the restrictions; it does not itself authorise the placement.

The court must be satisfied that the statutory permission requirements are met, that significant harm is a real possibility if the jurisdiction is not exercised, and that the proposed arrangements safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. The deprivation must be proportionate to the child’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR. Restrictions and their duration require close review.

The Local Authority sought leave under section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and obtain a deprivation of liberty declaration for A, aged 14. A was exposed to serious risks arising from organised criminal exploitation, drug misuse, absconding, violence and sexual harm.

The proposed placement was an unregistered children’s home. The Local Authority sought restrictions including three-to-one staffing, confinement, alarms, locks and physical intervention to prevent absconding. The father supported a longer order, while the Children’s Guardian sought a shorter period and review. The central issues were whether the jurisdiction could be exercised despite the unregistered placement, whether imperative necessity existed, and what duration and restrictions were proportionate.

1. Application granted. The court granted the Local Authority leave under section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. The statutory alternatives could not achieve the required protection, and there was reasonable cause to believe that A would suffer significant harm if the jurisdiction were not exercised.
2. The statutory scheme does not permit the placement of a child under 16 in an unregistered children’s home. However, following Re T and Re A Mother v Derby City Council, the High Court may authorise restrictions on the child’s liberty in such a placement where imperative conditions of necessity justify intervention. The declaration authorises the deprivation of liberty and does not authorise the placement itself.
3. Whether imperative necessity exists depends on the facts. Here, A faced a real risk of catastrophic injury or death through organised criminal exploitation, as well as risks arising from absconding, weapons, drugs and violence. Those risks justified immediate protective restrictions and the proposed placement.
4. The restrictions amounted to confinement when compared with a child of the same age, and the confinement was imputable to the state. Consent could not be given by the Local Authority or either parent in light of the interim care order. The court authorised three-to-one supervision, confinement measures, trained physical restraint where necessary, and transportation arrangements. It excluded restrictions on electronic devices from the declaration because those matters fell within the Local Authority’s parental responsibility, while recognising that supervision and monitoring were welfare-consistent.
5. The arrangements were proportionate because their welfare benefits outweighed the interference with A’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 of the ECHR. A six-month declaration struck the appropriate balance between allowing meaningful therapeutic work and avoiding an unduly long initial restriction. The Local Authority was required to keep the restrictions under close review, with liberty to apply and further consideration at the issues resolution hearing.