Edward Bennett and Rob George appear in the Supreme Court In the matter of T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35


3rd Aug 2021 | News, Cases


On Friday, 30 July 2021 the Supreme Court decision in T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35 was published. This case concerns the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to authorise a local authority to deprive a child of his or her liberty.

Rob George appeared on behalf of the Appellant and Edward Bennett on behalf of the intervener, the Children’s Commission.

Background in brief

Due to a shortage of provision for children who require special limitations on their liberty but for whom no space is available local authorities are able to seek orders from the High Court under its inherent jurisdiction authorising alternative restrictive placements of children elsewhere than in an approved secure children’s home.

In 2017 Caerphilly County Borough Council (“CCBC”) intended to accommodate T in a placement in England which was not a registered children’s home in circumstances which involved her being deprived of her liberty. It applied to the High Court for an order under the inherent jurisdiction authorising it to deprive T of her liberty there, and the order was granted. After that placement broke down, the court authorised CCBC to deprive T of her liberty in a registered children’s home in England, which was not approved for use as secure accommodation.

Issues

The main issues before the Supreme Court were twofold;

i. Firstly, is it a permissible exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to make an order authorising a local authority to deprive a child of his or her liberty in this category of case? is such a use of the inherent jurisdiction barred by the Children Act 1989 (the “CA 1989”) and contrary to article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the “ECHR”)?

ii. Secondly, if the High Court can have recourse to its inherent jurisdiction to make an order of the type in question, what is the relevance of the child’s consent to the proposed living arrangements?

Held

The Supreme Court held that the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty in cases like the present is permissible, but expresses grave concern about its use to fill a gap in the child care system caused by inadequate resources.

To read the full judgment, click here.


Do you have a similar case?

If you would like some help or advice, talk about a similar matter, call our clerks on 020 7353 6961.

Authors

Recent

Harcourt Chambers Celebrates Rob George at the Bar Pro Bono Awards

We are particularly proud to congratulate our very own Rob George, who received a special…


Aidan Vine KC in H and J (Placement Orders) [2024] EWCA Civ 429

Aidan Vine KC led Carolyn Bland of Deans Court Chambers in H and J (Placement Orders)…


Simon Miller and Alana Hughes in Re D (Children: Interim Care Order: Hair Strand Testing) [2024] EWCA Civ 498

Simon Miller led Alana Hughes in the above case, they represented the local authority. ‘This appeal…

Search

Shortlist close
Title Type CV Email

Remove All

Download