Lancashire County Council v Claire X
[2023] EWHC 2667 (Fam)
Conwy County Borough Council v PR & Ors
19 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)
High Court
A teenager's violent behavior led to a legal battle about who should care for her and whether a special mental health law applied. The judge decided they couldn't overrule the mental health experts, so they kept the girl safe using a different legal power until a better solution was found.
Key Facts
- •SB (15) exhibited extremely challenging and violent behavior, putting herself and others at risk.
- •Conwy County Borough Council sought a care order and a deprivation of liberty order (DoL) for SB.
- •A dispute arose between the local authority and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board regarding responsibility for SB's care and whether the 1983 Mental Health Act applied.
- •Multiple psychiatrists assessed SB; some believed she met the criteria for detention under the 1983 Act, others did not.
- •The local authority initially sought a declaration that the inherent jurisdiction couldn't be used due to the 1983 Act's applicability.
- •SB's behavior improved in recent weeks with medication compliance.
Legal Principles
The High Court cannot supervise or review decisions entrusted by Parliament to another public authority.
A v Liverpool City Council [1982] AC 363; Re W (A Minor) (Wardship: Jurisdiction) [1985] AC 791; MN (Adult) [2015] EWCA Civ 411
The inherent jurisdiction only applies when no statutory scheme is available.
MBC v AM and Others (DoL Orders for Children under 16) [2021] EWHC 2472 (Fam)
Using the court to influence decisions of another public authority is an abuse of process.
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte T [1995] 1 FLR 293
The court cannot force a hospital to admit a child under the 1983 Act, even if the criteria are met.
Blackpool BC v HT (A Minor) [2022] EWHC 1480 (Fam); Re MK (Deprivation of Liberty and Tier 4 Beds) [2024] EWHC 1553 Fam
Schedule 1A of the 2005 Act allows the Court of Protection to determine ineligibility for detention under the 2005 Act if detention under the 1983 Act is possible; this does not extend to the inherent jurisdiction of the Family Division.
Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS & Others [2023] EWCOP 33; GJ v The Foundation Trust [2009] EWHC 2972 (Fam)
Outcomes
The local authority's application for a declaration that SB was detainable under the 1983 Act and that the inherent jurisdiction was therefore unavailable was refused.
The court lacks jurisdiction to review clinical decisions under the 1983 Act; making such a declaration would be an abuse of process and could leave SB without adequate protection.
The court will continue to authorize SB's deprivation of liberty at NWAS under its inherent jurisdiction.
This is necessary and proportionate to prevent SB from harming herself or others while a suitable community placement is found.
Similar Cases
MK: Deprivation of Liberty and Tier 4 Beds, Re
[2024] EWHC 1553 (Fam)
The Local Authority v B
[2024] EWHC 2477 (Fam)
Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v JS & Anor (Schedule 1A Mental Capacity Act 2005)
[2023] EWCOP 33
JR (Deprivation of Liberty; Principles of Care), Re
[2024] EWHC 564 (Fam)