High Court Declines to Make Deprivation of Liberty Order

The High Court has refused to make a Deprivation of Liberty order sought by a local authority in respect of a 17-year-old boy.

The boy was estranged from his parents and had been accommodated by the local authority since shortly after his 16th birthday. He had been provided with a number of placements. He had a history of absconding from those placements and of threatening to harm himself. In March 2025 he had attended the emergency department of a hospital, expressing suicidal ideation, and had been admitted as a voluntary patient. Since then he had been medically fit for discharge.

The local authority applied for permission to invoke the inherent jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Children Act 1989. If permitted within that jurisdiction, they sought an order depriving the boy of his liberty for six months and permitting them to take him from the hospital ward to a placement that they considered would meet his needs. The boy did not wish to go to that placement, would not go there of his own free will and was unlikely to stay there unless prevented from leaving.

The Court considered a statement from the boy that set out his clear preference for an alternative placement option and gave his reasons. He stated with equal clarity why he did not want to go to the local authority's preferred placement. His statement also said that he would consent to accommodation under Section 20 of the Act if his requests were met. The Children's Guardian said that placing him in a placement against his wishes and under a restrictive order would clearly impact negatively on his emotional and mental health.

It was agreed that without valid consent to Section 20 accommodation, there would be a clear violation of Section 100(2)(b), which prohibits the exercise of inherent jurisdiction so as to require a child to be accommodated by or on behalf of a local authority. In the Court's judgment, the primary purpose of the application was to compel the boy to be accommodated against his will, rather than to deprive him of his liberty at a placement where he consented to being accommodated. The application thus offended against the statutory scheme and Section 100(2)(b) in particular. The Court declined to make the order.

In case it was wrong about the purpose of the application, the Court needed to consider whether it was in the boy's best interests to deprive him of his liberty. The Court found that he had made a reasoned and reasonable decision not to go to the local authority's preferred placement and it was not in his best interests to compel him to go there.

The Court noted that the local authority had confirmed that if the order was not granted, the boy would be offered a placement at his preferred placement. He had confirmed that he would accept that placement and would consent to his accommodation by the local authority.