Children ‘locked up in unregistered accommodation’
SOME of society’s most “damaged and vulnerable” children are being “locked up” in unregistered, and sometimes substandard accommodation, the Supreme Court has heard.
These youngsters are confined to the point where it affects their “fundamental right to liberty”, a panel of five justices was told.
The court is hearing a legal challenge yesterday brought by a teenage girl who was placed in unregistered accommodation following a court order as there were no places available in a registered secure children’s home.
Councils currently must ask the High Court to sanction children being placed in unregistered housing, in the event there are no registered places available.
The teenager – referred to as T to protect her identity – is challenging a Court of Appeal ruling which upheld two orders made by a High Court judge, that authorised Caerphilly County Borough Council to deprive her of her liberty in unregistered accommodation.
In documents before the Supreme Court, Mark Twomey QC, the girl’s barrister, said: “Despite its unease, the effect of the decision of the Court of Appeal is to permit the ‘locking up’ of some of society’s most damaged and vulnerable children in placements that are not authorised for that purpose, in many cases not regulated at all.
“These are children who are often physically and emotionally scarred; vulnerable and forgotten,” he added.
“The placements can be sub-standard, with limited checks on the staff employed.”
Mr Twomey argued that these children “are in fact confined to such a degree so as to engage their fundamental right to liberty”.
“To hear that the ‘locking up’ of these children is authorised with some frequency, outside of any statutory scheme, without any formal system of checks or record-keeping, with no defined legal test, and without (it appears) even any data on the extent of the problem might surprise many members of this court,” he said.
Mr Twomey also said “numerous” High Court judges have “felt compelled to speak out” about the lack of appropriate accommodation for these vulnerable youngsters and the issues it causes.
In written submissions, lawyers for Caerphilly council said the authority does not “recognise or accept” the categorisation of its actions as “locking up” youngsters, and that it has “appropriately and necessarily” relied on the powers of the courts to “promote T’s interests and safeguard her welfare”.
The Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether it is lawful for judges to authorise a child’s placement in unregistered secure accommodation when there are no places available in registered housing, and if so, what legal tests a court should apply when making these decisions.
The panel is also being asked to decide if a child’s consent to being confined in an unregistered placement is of any relevance when a court is deciding whether to authorise such a placement.
T – who was 15 at the time the orders were made – consented to the restrictions on her liberty in the unregistered placements and argued this meant that formal orders restricting her liberty were not necessary.
But the High Court concluded that her consent was not valid and made the orders sought by the local authority.
T is challenging those orders, arguing that she does not object to the placements, or restrictions on her liberty, but wants to be recognised as capable of consenting in law.
The case comes in the same week that a High Court judge warned vulnerable children with complex needs are continuing to “fall through the gaps” due to a chronic shortage of secure care placements.
Mr Justice MacDonald issued the warning in a ruling about a suicidal teenager in urgent need of a suitable place to live, with no secure placement available anywhere in the UK.
The senior judge concluded he was left with “no option” but to make an order authorising the deprivation of the teenager’s liberty at the unregulated placement, saying it is the only one available and “the priority must be to keep G safe”.