The Local Authority v B

The High Court may use its inherent jurisdiction to authorise deprivation of a child’s liberty in an unregistered placement where the statutory scheme does not permit the placement and imperative conditions of necessity exist. The court must be satisfied that no other order can achieve the necessary protection, that there is a real possibility of significant harm, and that the proposed restrictions are necessary, proportionate and the least restrictive available. The authorisation concerns deprivation of liberty safeguards; it does not itself authorise the unlawful placement. A child’s welfare, the risks of catastrophic or fatal harm, the availability of alternative accommodation, and the child’s rights under Articles 2, 5 and 8 ECHR must be balanced. Any authorisation should be limited to the period and conditions justified by the evidence.

The Local Authority applied under the inherent jurisdiction for continuing deprivation of liberty safeguards in respect of B, a 14-year-old child subject to a care order. B was living in an unregistered children’s home, which was unlawful because he was under 16. The Local Authority submitted that no suitable registered placement was available and that returning B to the community would expose him to serious risks arising from absconding, organised crime, drug use and violence.

The application sought authority for locked doors and windows, enhanced staffing, specified restraints, travel restrictions and supervision outside B’s bedroom at night. The central issues were whether leave should be granted under section 100 of the Children Act 1989, whether imperative conditions of necessity justified invoking the inherent jurisdiction, and whether the proposed regime was necessary and proportionate.

1. Application granted. The Local Authority was granted leave under section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction. No other order could achieve the protection sought, and there was reasonable cause to believe that B would otherwise suffer significant harm.
2. The placement was unlawful because it was an unregistered children’s home and B was under 16. The statutory scheme did not permit the placement. Nevertheless, consistent with Re T (A child) [2021] UKSC 35 and Re A Mother v Derby City Council [2021] EWCA Civ 1867, the High Court could authorise restrictions on liberty where imperative conditions of necessity justified doing so.
3. The evidence established a real possibility of catastrophic or fatal harm if B returned to the community. His history of absconding, involvement with organised crime and county lines, drug-related behaviour and serious violence justified the conclusion that the proposed safeguards were necessary to protect him and others.
4. The restrictions amounted to a confinement imputable to the state. Neither the Local Authority nor B’s mother could consent because of the care order. The restrictions were the least restrictive means available and were necessary and proportionate to B’s welfare needs and the risks identified.
5. The authorisation covered locked doors and windows, up to three-to-one staffing, tightly defined use of trained restraint, travel safety locks and night-time supervision. It was granted for three months as a final order, balancing B’s Article 5 and Article 8 rights with the protection of his Article 2 right to life. The declaration did not authorise the placement itself.