Re SB (2024) EWHC 2964 (Fam): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 15:06, 21 November 2024

Inherent jurisdiction and MHA SB, a 15-year-old, was subject to an interim care order, and a deprivation of liberty order made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that the court should declare that SB was within the scope of the MHA and that therefore the inherent jurisdiction could not be used. Its submissions were based on parity of argument with the Case E ineligibility provisions in the MCA, the interpretation given to them in GJ, and the approach taken by the court in JS. The High Court decided that the approach taken in JS did not apply to the inherent jurisdiction: to make a declaration about MHA detention would be to exercise an impermissible supervisory review function; if such a declaration were made as a means of influencing the professionals' decisions then it would be an abuse of process; in any event, the outcome might leave SB without protection from either regime.

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 146, December 2024)

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty
Inherent jurisdiction cases🔍 Older inherent jurisdiction cases can still be found in Category:Other capacity cases

Date: 19 November 2024🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Cites:

Judge(s):

Keehan🔍

Parties:

Conwy County Borough Council🔍
PR🔍
LR🔍
SB🔍
Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board🔍

Citation number(s):

[2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam)^B

What links here:

Published: 21/11/24 14:59

Cached: 2025-08-21 13:09:37

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 |Judges=Keehan
 |Parties=Conwy County Borough Council, PR, LR, SB, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board
-|Cites=Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS (2023) EWCOP 33
+|Cites=Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust v JS (2023) EWCOP 33# GJ v The Foundation Trust (2009) EWHC 2972 (Fam)
 |Sentence=Inherent jurisdiction and MHA
 |Summary=SB, a 15-year-old, was subject to an interim care order, and a deprivation of liberty order made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that the court should declare that SB was within the scope of the MHA and that therefore the inherent jurisdiction could not be used. Its submissions were based on parity of argument with the Case E ineligibility provisions in the MCA, the interpretation given to them in ''GJ'', and the approach taken by the court in ''JS''. The High Court decided that the approach taken in ''JS'' did not apply to the inherent jurisdiction: to make a declaration about MHA detention would be to exercise an impermissible supervisory review function; if such a declaration were made as a means of influencing the professionals' decisions then it would be an abuse of process; in any event, the outcome might leave SB without protection from either regime.