Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''(1) Given the terms of s20(8) [[Children Act 1989]] (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of [[Article 5]]. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state.'' [Detailed summary to follow.] | ''(1) Given the terms of s20(8) [[Children Act 1989]] (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of [[Article 5]]. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state.'' [Detailed summary to follow.] | ||
==Appeal== | |||
The Official Solicitor is appealing to the Court of Appeal: see [[Settled cases and forthcoming judgments]]. | |||
==Citations== | ==Citations== | ||
Revision as of 22:16, 31 August 2011
(1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.]
Appeal
The Official Solicitor is appealing to the Court of Appeal: see Settled cases and forthcoming judgments.
Citations
Citation on transcript: [2010] EWHC 3355 (COP)Not on Bailii! (Fam)
External link
...
Transcript - from Alex Ruck Keene, 39 Essex Street