Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email editor@familylaw.co.uk.
A day in the life Of...
Read on

Re C (A Child) [2016] EWHC 3473 (Fam)

Date:16 MAR 2017
Third slide
Law Reporter

(Family Division, Keehan J, 8 March 2017)

Public law children – Deprivation of liberty – 15-year-old detained in secure residential unit – Whether authorisation of the High Court was necessary – Gillick competence and consent

The 15-year-old boy was found to be Gillick competent and to consent to his detainment at the secure residential unit.

The 15-year-old boy had lived in local authority care since 2007. Due to his increasingly difficult behaviours he moved to a specialist residential unit with high levels of supervision. The restrictions imposed included him never being left alone or alone with other residents, the external doors were locked at night, bedroom doors were alarmed at night and he could not leave the unit unsupervised.

The local authority sought leave under s 100(3) of the Children Act 1989 to make an application under the inherent jurisdiction for the authorisation of the young man’s detention at the residential unit. The children’s guardian asserted that there was no need to exercise the inherent jurisdiction since he was Gillick competent and had consented to confinement.

There was no issue between the local authority and the Official Solicitor that whatever legal framework used to authorise the young man’s detainment, it was proportionate and in his best interests.

It was clear from the restrictions imposed on the young man that he was being deprived of his liberty. On the totality of the evidence he was also Gillick competent and was capable in law of consenting to his detainment. The court was satisfied that he had consented to his confinement. There was no need to exercise the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.

Case No: LE16C00359

Neutral Citation Number: [2016] EWHC 3473 (Fam)


Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Date: 08/03/2017



- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


A Local Authority

-and –

D (1)
(By her litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

E (2)

C (A Child) (3)
By his Children’s Guardian

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mr Martin Kingerley (instructed by Legal Services) for the Local Authority
Ms Victoria Butler-Cole (instructed by RP Robinson) for the Official Solicitor
Mr Malcolm Chisholm (instructed by Hunt & Coombs) for the Children’s Guardian

Hearing dates: 17th November 2016

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Re C (A Child) [2016] EWHC 3473 (Fam).rtf
Financial Remedies Handbook
Financial Remedies Handbook
Formerly entitled the Ancillary Relief Handbook...
Family Law Reports
Family Law Reports
"The unrivalled and authoritative source of...
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
Emergency Remedies in the Family Courts
"A very good tool for the busy family lawyer"...