JR (Deprivation of Liberty; Principles of Care), Re
[2024] EWHC 564 (Fam)
J: Local Authority consent to Deprivation of Liberty, Re
25 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1690 (Fam)
High Court
A 14-year-old boy with special needs needs constant supervision to be safe. Everyone agrees this is best for him, but there's a legal question about whether the court needs to formally order this supervision. The judge decided that the local authority responsible for his care can consent to the necessary supervision, so a formal court order isn't needed. The judge carefully considered human rights issues but prioritized the child's safety and well-being.
Key Facts
- •Application for a Deprivation of Liberty Order (DoLO) and a final Care Order for 14-year-old J, a looked-after child with autism, ADHD, and Pica.
- •J resides in a specialist children's home and requires a high level of care and supervision due to his conditions.
- •The Care Order is unopposed; the dispute centers on the necessity of a DoLO.
- •The court considers whether there's a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR and whether the Local Authority (LA) can consent to the care arrangements.
Legal Principles
Deprivation of liberty requires meeting the Storck criteria (objective confinement and lack of valid consent).
Storck v Germany [2006] 43 EHRR 6
The court applies the principles in Re SM (Deprivation of Liberty; Severely Disabled Child) [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam) regarding objective confinement.
Re SM [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)
A DoLO's purpose is to provide a defence against future claims of unlawful detention or breach of Article 5.
None explicitly stated, but implied throughout sections 16-19
Whether a LA can consent to a deprivation of liberty depends on whether the consequences are 'of great magnitude' to the child (In re H [2020] EWCA Civ 664; In re C [2016] EWCA Civ 374).
In re H [2020] EWCA Civ 664; In re C [2016] EWCA Civ 374
A LA with parental responsibility under a Care Order may consent to a deprivation of liberty unless the decision is of such magnitude that it requires court intervention.
Section 33 Children Act 1989; Re H [2020] EWCA Civ 664; Lincolnshire CC v TGA [2022] EWHC 2323
Decisions concerning deprivation of liberty are a significant infringement of human rights but must be considered within the context of the individual case.
Cheshire West v P [2014] AC 896; Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333
Outcomes
Care Order granted.
Unopposed by any party.
DoLO not required.
The LA can consent to the deprivation of liberty because the restrictions are inevitable, unavoidable, and overwhelmingly in J's best interests; the decision doesn't rise to the level of 'great magnitude' requiring court intervention.