Introduction

The case of A Mother v Derby City Council & Anor ([2021] EWCA Civ 1867) marks a significant development in the legal landscape surrounding the placement of looked-after children in England. This appellate decision addresses the complex interplay between statutory regulations, inherent judicial jurisdiction, and human rights considerations, specifically the deprivation of liberty (DoL) of children under the age of 16 in unregistered children's homes. The parties involved include a mother challenging the authority of Derby City Council, other intervenors like the Secretary of State for Education, OFSTED, and multiple local authorities.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of Mr Justice MacDonald, affirming that the High Court retains the inherent jurisdiction to authorize the deprivation of liberty for children under 16, even when such placement occurs in unregistered children's homes. The judgment meticulously analyzed the statutory framework, the amendments introduced by the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021, and the implications of the Supreme Court's decision in Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35. Ultimately, the appeal challenging the legality of authorizing DoL in unregistered settings was dismissed.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Central to this judgment was the Supreme Court's decision in Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35. In Re T, the Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to authorize DoL remains lawful even when placements are outside or prohibited by the statutory scheme, provided that "imperative considerations of necessity" are met. The Court of Appeal in A Mother v Derby City Council & Anor followed this precedent, reinforcing the High Court's authority in exceptional circumstances.

Legal Reasoning

The Court of Appeal meticulously dissected the statutory provisions under the Children Act 1989 (CA 1989) and the amended Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2021. The appellant argued that the amended regulations explicitly prohibit placing children under 16 in unregistered children's homes, rendering any such placement ultra vires. However, the court distinguished between statutory prohibitions on placements and the court's inherent jurisdiction to authorize DoL based on common law principles. It held that while unregistered children's homes fall outside the statutory scheme of CA 1989, the High Court can still authorize DoL in these settings when it is the only viable option to safeguard the child's welfare, aligning with the requirements set out in Re T.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the High Court's inherent jurisdiction in protecting vulnerable children, even when placements fall outside statutory regulations. It ensures that rigid adherence to regulatory frameworks does not impede necessary protective measures, thereby prioritizing the child's immediate welfare and human rights. Future cases involving DoL in unregistered settings will likely reference this judgment, balancing statutory compliance with the flexible, welfare-oriented approach upheld by the courts.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Deprivation of Liberty (DoL): A legal mechanism allowing authorities to restrict a person's freedom for their protection or the protection of others, subject to legal authorization.

Inherent Jurisdiction: The authority of courts to make orders necessary to ensure justice, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions.

Ultra Vires: Acts performed beyond the scope of legal authority or power.

Statutory Scheme: The framework of laws and regulations governing a particular area of law.

Registered vs. Unregistered Children's Home: Registered homes comply with specific regulatory standards, while unregistered ones do not, making their operation potentially unlawful.

ECHR, Art 5: European Convention on Human Rights Article 5 protects the right to liberty and security.

Precedents Cited

In this judgment, the Court of Appeal extensively referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35. This precedent was pivotal in determining the scope of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction to authorize DoL in contexts where statutory provisions might appear to prohibit such actions. The Supreme Court in Re T clarified that the inherent jurisdiction is not constrained by existing statutory schemes when imperative conditions of necessity are present, thereby allowing flexibility in safeguarding vulnerable children.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal's dismissal of the appellant's challenge in A Mother v Derby City Council & Anor underscores the judiciary's commitment to prioritizing child welfare and human rights over rigid statutory interpretations. By upholding the High Court's inherent jurisdiction, the judgment ensures that vulnerable children are not left without protective measures due to regulatory constraints. This decision harmonizes statutory law with common law principles, reaffirming the courts' essential role in safeguarding the rights and welfare of looked-after children, even in complex regulatory environments.