The High Court exercised its inherent jurisdiction and authorised a deprivation of liberty in respect of the capacitous P.
The LA was ordered to pay half of the Official Solicitor's costs because of the LA's failure to make a timely application to review the P's deprivation of liberty, thus necessitating the involvement of the OS.
A review of the P's deprivation of liberty was not made by the LA in accordance with a previous court order, leading to delays in arranging an alternative placement for him and also the involvement of the OS. The OS was seeking a costs order against the LA in the sum of over £25,000, saying that but for the conduct of the LA, the streamlined procedure may have been appropriate. There would therefore have been no need for the OS to act (and incur costs) at all. The involvement of the OS was necessary and appropriate primarily because of the conduct of the applicant authority in failing to make timely application for review; or alternatively because, having failed to make a timely application, the placement had broken down and an urgent move was required.
The court ordered the LA to pay half the costs incurred by the OS. The explanations for the failure to comply with the requirement to apply for review, in so far as any explanations had been offered, were wholly inadequate. However, the court was not persuaded that a timely application for review would have avoided the need for the Official Solicitor's involvement completely.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Sir James Munby ruled that proceedings in relation to 16 and 17 year children who were subject to care orders and DOLs should remain in the Family Court and not be transferred to the Court of Protection.
The court had to consider capacity in relation to residence, treatment and care where the P suffered a personality disorder and a number of physical ailments including diabetes.
Applications to continue the deprivation of liberty of the 17 1/2 year old Patient and to continue his current placement. Orders were made accordingly.
Application for costs by the OS after a test case relating to DoLS was withdrawn. Application refused.
Application to challenge a standard DoLs authorisation. The court ruled that a second expert should be instructed before a decision could be made as to the Patient's capacity to decide where he would live.
Charles J judgment in which he tackles streamlined (Re X) non-contentious deprivation of liberty cases and the problem where no family members or friends of the Patient are able or willing to act as Rule 3A (now Rule 1.2) Representatives.
Appeal against a decision involving the deprivation of liberty of a 16 year old boy. The appeal was allowed on one ground.
LA's application for permission to deprive the child Patient of his liberty in circumstances where there was no secure accommodation available.
The Patient, a 13 year old child, had displayed a desperate history and catalogue of very seriously uncontrolled behaviour, damaging both to himself and to others. As a result he had been placed in no less than six different residential settings. Each such setting ultimately broke down, sometimes very rapidly, as the staff there were simply unable to manage his behaviour and keep him safe. The LA would have wished by last June to place the child in an approved secure accommodation placement. Such placements are currently very scarce and they were unable to find one. So it was that they hoped to place him in a unit which is not approved secure accommodation at X. Their plan was, however, that within X he should, if necessary, be subject to considerable restraint, including physical restraint, in order to keep him safe and prevent him from absconding, as he had done on occasions in the past. It is not necessary to apply to the High Court for a secure accommodation order. However, as no approved secure accommodation was available, the LA required the authorisation of a court for the inevitable deprivation of liberty of the child which would be involved.
Mr Justice Holman expressed his concern over the way in which applications of this sort are handled, saying that "the device of resort to the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court is operating to by-pass the important safeguard under the regulations of approval by the Secretary of State of establishments used as secure accommodation. There is a grave risk that the safeguard of approval by the Secretary of State is being denied to some of the most damaged and vulnerable children. This is a situation which cannot go on, and I intend to draw it to the attention of the President of the Family Division." The judge ordered that the child now be joined as a party to these proceedings and Cafcass must forthwith allocate a guardian to act on his behalf. A further hearing was ordered to be fixed in one month.
Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii
Case summaries & Editor's comments on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Get the latest cases & news delivered to your inbox with our free email updates.