Essential Secure Accommodation Update 2021
Hello and welcome everybody. I'm very pleased to welcome you to today's session through Data Law. This then is the session, I'm going through with you looking at the area of secure accommodation and also deprivation of liberty in Children cases and I'll be taking you through some of the law to practice and also somebody current developments. Now this is an area which he's complex, this is an area for which there's been a lot of media coverage and its favor uh topical at the moment, insofar as some of the current dilemmas surrounding this area. And what you'll find is we are finding that in Children cases, particularly in cases where local authorities are involved, you find that because of the fast shortage of secure accommodation units and also other forms of units you're available lack because of the lack of involvement you'll find and the lack of availability of those. You'll find that more and more local authorities are having to move towards looking at alternative ways of making sure that Children's needs can be uh dealt with by way of placing them In the appropriate placements. And that's very much with deprivation of liberty applications come in. So in this session, in these sessions which are going to be taken the form of uh four sessions, each one approximately 30 minutes in length. I'll be taking you through first and foremost a law and secure accommodation and then I'll be taking you through somebody developments in so far as the position with deprivation of liberty. Like I said, it's a huge area. Present lots going on. It's a very complex area. There's a lot of judicial activity on this. And there was Children and family practitioners. We all need to know about what the current position is and how best to represent our respective clients. I'll be taking you through the inherent jurisdiction route. I'll be taking you through some of the high profile judgments, particularly In 2021, particularly the T case, the recent Supreme Court decision on this. Okay, so before I start working to the material, I have put the copyright acknowledgment here for you acknowledging crown copyright and also the DFS corporate author in relation to the case law, the regulations, the guidance and the primary legislation. So what I want to start with then is just to talk to you first and foremost about the position with secure accommodation. Now, secure accommodation as I mentioned, is a is a particular part of running public Children's law proceedings. So many of you who practice in child care proceedings, Public law proceedings will be familiar with this area and it's quite a specialist part of public Child care proceedings. Um A lot of it's based on statute, but a lot of it's based on case law, uh and it's quite specific regulatory procedures as well. And what you will find is you may well have to apply for these orders, sometimes on an emergency basis, but effectively what is secure accommodation? Well, it's effectively whereby when he's seeking an order to place a child in a unit which is an approved secure accommodation unit, which permits, then the local thought to place the child in that unit uh for their protection or the protection of others. And it's an approved unit which permits the authorization, therefore, of that child being detained in the unit to be restrained and therefore their liberty being restricted in that regard. So that's the thinking behind a secure accommodation. In terms of what the purpose of this is. And it's used in many different types of situations. A secure accommodation application may be applied for which Children are self harming, for example, uh and therefore, domain need to be placed in a secure accommodation for a period of time. Now, this is where you Can see the interface between this and the mental health side. Of course, you've got the Mental Health Act on 1983 of course, to access many of the services under the Mental Health Act, you're looking at whether or not a child fulfills the criteria for for mental disorder, mental illness. You've got Section two, Section three of the act, secure accommodation sits alongside that. But this could be particularly relevant where the child may not meet the criteria for mental health detention, for example. So what you will find is sometimes there's a very thin line between whether or not the child meets the criteria for mental health provision or whether or not we should be going down the route of a of a criminal sometimes a uh civil or family secure accommodation order. So it could be used in cases where one is self harming. It could be where a child is subject to child sexual exploitation, for example. Uh And therefore sometimes you may need to be sought to protect the child in those circumstances, although some of you will appreciate that in case of CSC once you'd be looking really uh if it's possible to go for CSC orders by way of in Vulcan inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to see for this could be sought against the respondents. In that circumstance, a secure order may also be sought where the child is a rescue others for example, and therefore for the protection of others sometimes, but not always a secure application maybe sort in relation to an older child. And secure secure accommodation applications can either sit alongside a care application or it can in fact sit independently. So it may will in fact be a freestanding application, which sometimes happens if it does run alongside a care application. What I found is the local authority may have lodged cape ceilings on the base of the second limb under section 31 2, which is the child is beyond parental control. And that's where you may find alongside that there's also the application for secure as well. And with secure accommodation, you find numerous agencies are going to be involved is going to be Children's services, education, health, and of course, a guardian will often be appointed in these proceedings, beloved Charles lister. And of course we're then Going before the judicial uh remedies in that regard. Now, this is where section 25 of the outcomes in section 25 of the Children Act sets out the criteria for seeking a secure accommodation order. Uh And this effectively is one where one would have to show either that the child has got a history of absconding and when I do abscond, they're likely to injure themselves or this alternative limb, which is if the child is placed in any other accommodation, they are likely to injure themselves or others. So it could be either of these limbs in that regard. Later, I'm going to be taking you through somebody other provisions in Wales. And in Wales, there is the section 119 of the social services and well being Whales Act of 2014, which has a very similar criteria to section 25 of the Children. Actually, I'll take you through that. And one of the things to bear in mind which we need to ask ourselves is when one is applying for a secure accommodation order, uh whether it's in England or whether it's in Wales is, does the welfare checklist apply in these applications and this case of reem which is quite an old case nine, does specify that in fact, technically at that stage anyway, he was regarded that their welfare check list pursuant to section 13 of the Children Act and also to know order principle under section 15, we're not directly applicable to secure accommodation applications. Having said that, I'm going to be if only later to the case of re b a more recent case, which does actually say that with these applications, we do need to look at a chance overall welfare. So in that respect, I would suggest that the welfare principles are of course directly relevant in this regard. Now in a secure accommodation application, we need to also bear in mind that these applications will often run alongside care proceedings. So you may have the child subject to said interim care order and then local authorities and lodge a secure application as well. So you already have a Guardian and the child's list too involved in the cape ceilings. And typically what you find is it will be the same Guardian. And most likely it will be the same solicitor as who is this list? And the care proceedings, who will then be appointed in the secure accommodation application. One of those things to bear in mind is of course, the role of the Guardian in these proceedings is that he or she stands as the interface between the conflicting rights and powers of the courts. The Guardian, as you know, is very much going to be playing a pivotal role in terms of making sure that they are there being the voice for the child of course. So what we mean by that is just like you would in a care case a spliced that would then be taking instructions from the Guardian on behalf of the child. But then just like in a care case, you may find that they are going to be the issue surrounding separate representation. So if you've got maybe an older child, perhaps who's conflicted with the Guardian, who x takes a different view to the Guardian, the Guardian takes to be that the child may be um uh maybe going to a secure unit for a period of time for their uh their psychological psychiatric educational input. But a child is opposing that cause of action. And of course in that situation you as a cyclist. And the need to firstly be satisfied as to whether there is that conflict at that level between the child and the Guardian and if. So you then need to go to the next level and see whether or not you can look to see whether or not the child is competent to be able to instruct you in accordance. We need Gillick principle. And if so, then that's where you could be looking at separate representation. So there is that one of the other things to bear in mind is some of the case law, such as a case of re Be a minor secure accommodation. This 1994 case and also the case of Birmingham City Council and m uh this case in 2000 and eight they both make the point that the court should not be making an interim secure accommodation order uh to basically keep the appointment of a guardian involved in that regard. It's got to be seen as a short term order with a view to then only being made for necessary and unavoidable. But of course the court can make interim orders if they're not in a position to decide whether for example, criteria met and if they're not in a position to conclude by where the final order. So for example, if the local authorities are suggesting that the charge should be placed in a secure unit, but the local authorities are not yet ready to be able to devise some formulate and finalize their exit plan i. E. Where the child's going to be placed after the period of secure and that's where it may make sense to make an interim order for a period of time to enable those enquiries to made to then come back to court to update the quarters to where we are before we are then in a position to be able to concluded thereafter. Mhm. Now, in terms of the criteria, as I've just mentioned, whether it's under section 25 of the Children Act, whether it's under section 119 Of the 2014, acting Wales either way. If the criteria are met and members either limb then a case of reedy secure accommodation number one this 1997 case and also Section 25. Subsection four Of the Children active 89 does say that if either of the limbs are met, the court shall make an order. Okay. Now, even though the court may well make the order in the circumstances, it doesn't mean that the local authority must then a detain restrain the child in the security. It's a permissive order sort of may do, it gives them the authority to do so. It doesn't mean that they have to of course, in that regard. Okay. And uh one of the other points to bear in mind here is the position with the age of the chance. So where do we stand There? Well, if the child is under 13 years of age, then this is where by permission of the Secretary of State is going to be required before an order coming made in those circumstances. So that's regulation for Of the Children Secure Accommodation Regulations of 1991. Okay, so that's if the child is under 13 years of age and therefore very, very important towards suggest those of you who are local authority base to make sure that you are therefore complying with the guidance that the statutory guidance there to get the authority from the Secretary of State to be able to seek that authorization, you can see the thinking behind this. It's simply because, given the age of the child, given what these orders are, what they entail. Um the Secretary of State Office would need to be satisfied that this is actually an appropriate usage. An appropriate application which is warranted and naturally in the child's interest in the circumstances and really do are no appropriate alternatives in that regard. If the child is over 16 and he's also accommodation on the section 20 subsection five of the Children, that's not perhaps in a community home, then it's not possible to seek a secure order for the child in those circumstances. The case, in the case of Section 20 subsection five provides for that. Having said that re G secure Accommodation 2000. This case does say that if the application had been commenced, pride to the child's 16th birthday, then in fact, in order to be made which continues beyond the child's birthday for that child story G confirms that position. The maximum age at Which one can make a child subject to security 17th, almost a child turns 18 and no adult can no longer be made subject to secure order. Now we also have What's known as the 72 hour provision. And the way that works is this let's take a situation whereby child is maybe saying a Children's home and they are perhaps or have left the unit, let's say with the intention to not return. But let's say they have the local authorities are concerned that there may once again leave the unit and they are, the evidence suggests putting themselves up this. Let's say that a victim of child sexual charge, sexual exploitation, for example, then that's where the difficulty of course is. If the local authority then lodged their application for secure under by filling in completing the form C. one and C20 which they didn't need to then serve the child with the child may think well, they don't wish to be subject to do that level of restraint control detention. So the child may once again decided to abscond from the unit. And therefore, how do you then protect a child? By preventing them from leaving the unit and putting themselves at risk at the same time, ensure that they right to a fair trial in terms of giving them notice sort of proceedings, is the respected And one way, of course in which local authorities made a need to deal with this is by way of using what's known as the 72-hour provision. And it's a pursuant to regulation 10 of the Children's Secure Accommodation Regulations of 1991. And what this provides for is for the local authority through senior management to decide to detain that Child uh in terms of securing that child for a period of up to 72 hours and for this they can do so opportunities, regulations without a court order. Of course this would be a senior manager Who would then need to make this decision and it can only before that period of up to 72 hours. So this may then be that the child is then made subject to secure Provisions in that regard, during those three days that would enable the local authorities and to lodge the application uh forms are in the C1 and C20 sort of pull that together and that is then listed to be heard before the 72 hours is up. Okay, so it gives that period of time to enable the child to be placed and then to enable them then to be served to then give them the opportunity to of course take legal advice which they're entitled to with a view to ensuring that the child is them fully represented in readiness for the hearing thereafter. Now, if a child is subject to award ship or if they suddenly if the award of court or later when we look at deprivation of liberty, If one is applying for the child to be made subject to a double order, then the form that you'll be Completing there is the former c. Okay, in terms of the application for secure Accommodation, one day's notice is required on the part 1200 procedures. Having said that sometimes the local authority mainly to apply to bridge time for service, just like we would would sometimes urgent interim care hearings and sometimes in the medicine protection order where one is applying to a bridge time for service and the type of situations that that may want me maybe whereby even though the center to our provision is being utilized, it may be that that's about to run out or it's the case that they need to get the matter listed urgently with a view to ensuring that it can be heard uh say before a significant change in that child's position. Having said that it is Possible to apply to a bridge that time for service. So like so normally a day's notice is given the case of 3C is a good example of that Where by the local authority lodged two applications, the logic care application and they lodged an application for secure, they committed to serve the chance listener with the secure accommodation application and therefore came to court and not expecting to secure not aware of it. But the court did say all parties are at court and therefore they were prepared to put a secure application back to be heard later on that particular afternoon. So therefore the less than the requisite one day notice was to be given. But there wasn't any prejudice cause to a child, the child solicitor or any other party in those circumstances. Now, that's where it's worth also noting the case of re w which basically provides that In line with section 25 subsection six of the Children at the child of course is entitled to be represented. It doesn't mean that they will take up the legal representation, but they're entitled to take legal advice and be fully representative this or wish. But VW does say that the child should not ideally be attending cord because it could potentially be harmful to a child if you do turn up psychologically emotionally, could of Course be be difficult for them. But having said that Article six of the European Convention on Human Rights is there were of course a child does have the right to a fair trial and that does mean that they can if they felt it necessary wish to attend court in those circumstances. Now, that then brings me onto the position with the duration of these orders. So when a local authority does lodge the application for secured and regulation 11 comes into play of the 1991 regulations, which effectively provides that the initial order could be made for a maximum period of up to three months. Okay, it's up to three months. But then subsequent orders could be made for up to six months at a time. So that's where Regulation 12 comes into play, where it is Possible. And to apply for a subsequent application for six months Order thereafter, up to six months. In practice, you'll find that local authorities may Well depending on the circumstances, go for initial three month order, they may then wish to pursue a longer six month order there after uh depending on the circumstances a lot depends on obviously the individual circumstances of the child, the exit plan, what the type of support is that's been put in. So in these units, it's not just for the purpose of containing restraining and you know, detaining the child in those circumstances. The aim should be to have the child in those units only for as long as is necessary and unavoidable. The aim should be to build in necessary psychological, psychosomatic, other forms of educational input so that the child will be able to then move back into some form of semi independent living and eventually independent living there after at the earliest opportunity. So these units must not be seen as a form of punishment as a former prison, It's not like that at all. These units are there to protect the child is, you know, so there to protect other persons. These units are there to enable the child to become more aware of their particular circumstances, to help them to have those coping skills and assistance given to themselves, that they can move back into the community they're after. And I think it's very important to highlight that point, because I have found in my experience that sometimes people do see secure accommodation as a form of punishment for Children, which really isn't, I would suggest what it's designed for at all. Like I say, uh the length of order is there on the right to Legal advice is there's a section 25 subsection six provides for the fact that the child is entitled to be legally represented. And of course they may decide not to take up that legal advice. But the provision is there pursuant to section 25 6 that then brings me onto the position surrounding secure criteria reviews. So this is contained within the 1991 regulations and regulation 15 in particular. Now this is a position In England and Wales. The regulations specify that the review has to be within 15 days was in England. The review that has to take place would be Within a month and then after that into force not exceeding three months. And the purpose of this is this if you've got a child who's subject to say a secure accommodation Order today for say three months. Then in the next month in England or certainly 15 days in Wales, there would then need to be a review to see whether or not the child continues to meet that criteria because as you can imagine, the purpose of placing a child in that unit is of course to protect them and others, but also to building that support that work, that intensive work with them to help them to move back into some form of independent living. And that's where if Say after 2 3 weeks, the child no longer meets the criteria for secured no longer place themselves at that level of risk or the people, then the local authority at this review will then be considering that. And then if that recommendation and is accepted by the local authority and the local authority takes that view that the child no longer meets the criteria, then they must let the child come out of that secure unit to not allow them to do so they will be subjected that child to false imprisonment. So it's very, very important to to bear that in mind. Now when you are dealing with secure cases, what I would suggest is that there's a number of practical issues that you need to deal with when you're dealing with these applications. Uh So what kind of things do we need to bear in mind? Well, if you're acting for a local authority, for example, make sure you're familiar with the various essential dates. So it's important that the social worker, for example has booked in essential dates such as planning meetings, for example, dates for the secure criteria. View for example, position with dates for assessments whether it's psychological, psychological is psychotic assessments otherwise. And also to make sure that we are clear in terms of the funding for that. And also the time scales also, what's the position with the child's education plants have been clear about that in the in the application, I would suggest that those of you representing whether it's a local authority represented child or the parents, you need to obviously keep up to date with the law and the regulations. As I have mentioned, this is a very fast moving area and there's a lot of judicial guidance now been given on these areas when you are taking instructions from the garden on behalf of the child, make sure you advise a guardian about the various options available. So thinking about the various options in terms of what else could be done in terms of funding, for example, should it be that the funding is that for this unit? Is that are you going to be getting the Children services involved? Education, health, for example, how long should a child be in this unit? What type of support is being put in And therefore that's we need to be having discussion discussions with the guardian as to whether the order that is being sought, whether it should be an interim order, for example whether it should be a fine lord of for example, in the circumstance and that will often depend on whether or not there is or an exit plan that's already been drawn up. Now, one of the other things you need to think about is should the child even be attending court and sometimes I appreciate section 25 6 is about giving the child the right to legal representation. And we've looked at the re w case about article six but it doesn't mean a child has to attend court and sometimes you may find that it could be obviously very upsetting for the child sometimes to attend court in these circumstances. So is it better for them not to be lazy, it better for them to be in a particular room at court? Is it better for them to attend remotely? For example, as you know, Because of COVID since March 2020, we've all become a lot more acclimatized and adjusted to doing a lot more hearings remotely. So should the child, for example, be attained a hearing remotely so effectively have a hybrid hearing in that regard. That's, that's one of the things you need to give consideration about. And of course, what about contact? If the child is attending the court physically, then what about contact? Could they be having contact with their family at that court could be facilitated in those circumstances? Could have a separate room in the building, for example. And also make sure you're familiar with the various uh dates for not just the local authority, but indeed for all sort of guardian child. And also the parents, in terms of the date of the secure criteria review. For example, Now, when you're acting for parents, make very important to make sure that you can explain to them in an easy, relatively digestible, understandable manner, complex legal arguments as you know, secure accommodation is not easy. It's a very complex area. You need to be able to explain threshold perhaps of reviews the types of orders, what can happen in these units, what the levels of restraint are, what's the purpose of, of of the replacement is what kind of safeguarding takes place. And as many of you were now public funding for parents is very restricted for secure accommodation applications. And often the legal agency will not be in a position to be able to fund uh funding for for representing parents in these circumstances. But what you will find often is the secure application may be running alongside the care applications. So you're being caught anyway, dealing with the care case perhaps very important, as I say at court to maybe have a separate conference room for the child if passport you need extra security at court that day. And also bear in mind that if the hearing is listed uh say in the morning for example and a child is placed in a unit many many miles away let's say. And it's a easily a couple of hours round trip, for example, a one way trip to the court then isn't it? Better to maybe get the matter listed later on in the day so as to give the time, the opportunity for the child and indeed you escort officers to then be able to leave the unit has a reasonable time and then be able to get to the unit thereafter. So those are some of the practical things you need to be thinking about and sometimes the application may need to be made even on a weekend or bank holiday, so will you be available for example, to cover their hearing? So that if we need to of course better in mind as well going forward, That then brings me onto this case of www. A charges 2016 decision. And this was a particular case involving a 17 year old child who was made subject to secure accommodation order pursuant to Section 25. But then uh this child appealed against the ordering and Cheap argued two things one. Her argument was that because she was now 17, she said that the court lacked jurisdiction To make her subject to secure order without her consent. And that's because she was arguing that because she was now 17 and therefore had obviously reached 16, she's able to discharge herself as many of you know, you got section 20 subsection one of the Children and Children 16 plus can then discharge themselves. So she argued that because of that, she could not be placed in a secure unit without her permission. And secondly, she said that she hadn't even absconded. She said the word absconding is misused for the purposes of section 119 or section 20 five Children Act. And therefore she she was of the view that she had absconded. We're going through this in terms of whether she was correct in terms of Whether or not and now that she was 17. The the court lacked jurisdiction to make her subject to secured on the basis, you can discharge herself. The court said yes, that would be correct. If she was being accommodated under, for example, Section 20 subsection for uh section 20 subsection one of the Children of, for example, but here there is a provision under Section 20 Subsection three of the Children Act, which essentially provides that once a child has reached the age of 16, if the local authority are so satisfied that their welfare is such that it is likely to be seriously prejudice, they do. If they do not accommodate the child, Then they can do so. In the section 20 subsection three of the Children and 20 subsection three allows local authority to accommodate a child Who is 16 or over where by not doing so their welfare will be seriously prejudiced and a child cannot utilize section 20 subsection Lebon or any other provision to discharge themselves from that. So that's that's one way to deal with that. Having said that the parent of course can Do so sort of parent may use section 20 subsection eight and say, actually, I know my child cannot discharge themselves because your views, Section 20 subsection three, but I'm using section 20 subsection eight to discharge. So you do need to bear that in mind. And as for the second issue, which is about absconding uh the court did say that in fact to abscond means to disengage from that unit. It means a situation where a person the child leaves the unit uh indefinitely from the imposed regime as opposed to wanting to return after a period of time. So that is important. So if if you do then have a situation where child does leave the unit and their intention is to return. Technically, there is an argument that they may not have expanded absconded in the circumstances and this is where one has to look at alternatives to secure. Now, as I mentioned earlier, we also need to appreciate the difference in in England and Wales. And then also Scotland, as we'll see shortly insofar as the position would secure accommodation. So in Wales, there is section 111119 of these social associates and well being Whales Act of 2014, which sets out the criteria for secure. It's almost identical tree criteria that you have In England and as to which actually apply and whether it's section 119 of the 2014 Act. Whether it's section 25 Children act doesn't depend on which, where the local authorities geographically based, whether it's an english or welsh authority, it's based on where the child is looking to be placed. So if for example, it's an english authority based therefore in England who seeks to place a child in the secure unit in Wales, for example, then you would be applying under Section 119, if it's a welsh authority who is looking to place a child in an english secure accommodation unit, then You would be applying under section 25. So that's the that's the kind of thinking behind that. There were also these regulations are Children secure accommodation Wales regulations of 2015, uh, which set out the requirements in so far as the Maximum parents during which Children could be placed. So that's very much tying in with the 1991 regs that I mentioned earlier in terms of the the time periods. Now, what's the position with Children being placed in a secure accommodation unit in Scotland? Well, we had these two cases case to re x a child and re y a child A few years ago in 20 16 that were handed down by the then President of the family division, Sir James mumbi. And the question that the president posed was if you did have a secure accommodation order which was made either by the english or welsh judiciary, so whether it's under Section 25 Children Act, whether it's under section 119, but the aim is to place a child in a secure unit in Scotland, then will the english or welsh orders be registered, will they be recognized in Scotland? And if they are not going to be recognized, then what about using inherent jurisdiction of the High court. Is there an alternative? Now, the president did say that the orders Made at that time anyway, in England and Wales under section 25 or 1 1 nine, respectively, would it be recognized in Scotland. And the problem with the secure comedy inherent jurisdiction route was that that that that would not be recognized as, as a way of having the child placed in in Scotland to fire that route. So the only way to have a child placed in Scotland at the time in a secure accommodation unit was to make an application of court of session involved in what's known as the Nobile or Fiqi um which is basically where one would be applying at the Court of Sessions to have a the equivalent of a secure accommodation order made there. Having said that There were changes and we had the children's social work act of 2017 that was passed. And that when that was passed in April that year, 27th of April this particular provision, section 10 came into effect which had the effect the schedule three of it, which provides that local authorities in England and Wales, they can they're on their after place. Children in secure accommodation in Scotland. And those orders would in fact be recognized. So it's clarified that issue which of course we had a real major issue with previously, just for the last part of today and I just wanted to now introduce you to the position with deprivation of liberty orders and how distant ties in with secure accommodation and article five of the European Convention. And this is where we've got this case in 2018 and is done by the then president of family Division. Sir James Mumbled is the case of A.F. The 2018 decision. And what his lordship said in this case is this if you've got a child who is subject to a care order, whether it's an interim or final order, then the parental responsibility that a local authority have and the court and that the parent have uh in sharing that parental responsibility, Local authority that cannot be used to provide a valid consent for the purposes of the stork component. Now, the store component is based on the case of stock stock in Germany, which sets out the so called acid test for then setting out the criteria that need to be met for the purposes of having a child who is being deprived of their liberty from having that authorized. And the elements basically are that the period of detention must not be more than must be more than what is negligible. So it's got to be for a period of time, it's got to be such that it's in the absence of consent. And thirdly, there needs to be it's got to be what's called computable to state, which essentially means that it would be a public body who would be looking to apply for this, which often it would be the local authority. Now, in terms of the issue of consent, what his lordship did say is if you got child subject to a nice your care order, then that consent cannot be forthcoming from the local authority. And nor can it be forthcoming from the parents would be uh it's got to be independent of them. And therefore that's where you need the authorization from the court and hence the need for a double order. And secondly a foster carer doesn't have parental responsibility either, which enables them to provide that value consent for a store component. Either. The other issue which was raised in this case is what do we mean by deprivation of liberty? And this is where does his test hold? Speak requires an element of complete supervision and control and not being free to leave. Now that's where you're free to leave in particular doesn't mean that the person has to be locked inside source speed. They could be allowed to leave the unit but they would then be expected to return and if they were not to return on a set date or time for example. And so the police are called in to retrieve them and that's where they would not be classed as being free to leave. And constant supervision and control could be for example if they are being checked on repeatedly regularly. So you can see that's there and that's important to bear that in mind because that's different to restriction of movement. So those of you who are parents for example as you know you will be subjected your Children to a certain amount of restriction. For example, expecting them to for example, do their homework at a certain time to go to bed at a certain time. You'll be limiting their access online whether it's on ipads, whether it's the phones and so forth, and all of that is within the restriction of liberty which is permitted. But if one is then subjected to child to more than what would be expected in domestic setting. And that's where that can amount to a deprivation for which the authorization would be required. What's the position with a secure accommodation order? Well, for that to secure accommodation order, of course permits therefore for the child to be detained and restrained and therefore there's no need to pursue a High Court deprivation of Liberty order because of course to secure that allows that in those circumstances the High Court order or Court protection order wouldn't be required in those circumstances to sanction the confinement. And in terms of the procedure for this, the application would need to be made uh fighting having jurisdiction of the High Court. So it would need to be a judge of the High Court or a Section nine George. Section nine of Supreme Court Act. You would hear this application and the application should be made with a circumstance in which the charges will will constitute the deprivation of liberty. So in these proceedings you'll find the Guardian will more likely to not be the Guardian who is appointed as the Guardian of the care proceedings. And the same with the solicitor in that regard. And the evidence has support should address key factors such as the nature of the regime which is proposed to place a child. So you need to identify the features which will amount to confinement. You don't have to particularly is every single element of the confinement, but you do need to give a generalist view to the court as to what the extent of the confinement is. The core can then decide with a nice proportional, it satisfies in this entity test whereby it's necessary then to make the order sort of proportionality element as you can see, it's obviously very, very important here. Right, well done. So that brings us to the end of this first session where I spent a fair bit of time than going through with you the position with secure accommodation. And now we've looked at uh looking at deprivation of liberty. So the next session, I'll be going through secure accommodation applications in more detail, uh and looking at some of the limitations with it. And then we'll continue with the position. So, I mean, the issue of deprivation of liberty and I thank you very much indeed for listening. I hope that's been a useful session for you and I speak to you next time. Thank you very much. Bye for now
38:38
