London Borough of Lambeth v AB & Ors

Authorisation of a deprivation of liberty requires current, sufficient evidence demonstrating that the proposed restrictions are necessary, proportionate and imperatively required to protect the child’s best interests. A court should assess the child’s present risk, insight, conduct, willingness to comply with safety rules and the negative impact of continued deprivation. An anticipatory order cannot be justified merely because a risk might arise after a change of placement. The court will not authorise restrictions for a placement that has failed to comply with the limits of an existing order, particularly where the local authority has not acted promptly to address an unlawful deprivation. The child should ordinarily be given an opportunity to understand and contribute to the rules governing the placement, and to demonstrate responsible compliance.

The local authority applied for authorisation to deprive TC, a child subject to a care order, of his liberty at his existing placement and at a proposed new placement. Earlier orders had authorised specified restrictions, including supervision, locked doors, window restrictors, CCTV and limited use of physical restraint.

The existing placement continued restrictions beyond those authorised. The local authority did not promptly return the matter to court or secure an alternative placement. Its evidence for continuing the restrictions was also late and lacked analysis of TC’s recent conduct, insight and ability to comply with safety rules. The central issue was whether continued authorisation was necessary and proportionate in the current or proposed placement.

The application for authorisation was refused in substance. The existing authorisations were discharged in relation to both the current placement and TC’s reception at the proposed new placement.

1. Existing placement. The local authority and placement provider had ignored the limits of the previous order. The placement had continued restrictions which were not authorised, while the local authority had taken no proper step to address the resulting unlawful deprivation of liberty. There was therefore no proper basis for authorising restrictions at that placement.
2. Necessity and proportionality. Independently, the evidence did not establish a sufficient current risk or an imperative need for continued deprivation. The evidence failed adequately to analyse TC’s development of insight, his responsible behaviour in placement, his willingness to comply with reasonable safety rules and the adverse impact of continued deprivation.
3. Anticipatory restrictions. The possibility that TC might return to a risky area or fail to comply with rules at the new placement did not, without a convincing evidential foundation, justify authorisation in advance. The court was required to assess the actual circumstances and the proposed placement rather than proceed on a precautionary basis alone.
4. Future care planning. The local authority was expected to explain the placement rules to TC, involve him in understanding them and give him responsibility for complying with them. His engagement with a community organisation was relevant to the assessment and was to continue.

A review hearing was directed for about 1 March 2024, with a view to the application being withdrawn or dismissed after TC’s engagement and the local authority’s support had been assessed.

Not an appeal. The judgment determined an application arising from continuing deprivation-of-liberty proceedings following earlier authorisations made within the same proceedings.