The disabled boy was subject to restrictions amounting to deprivation of liberty by a local authority but Mrs Justice Lieven held that a DoL from the High Court was unnecessary because the council, once in possession of a care order, could give valid consent through its exercise of parental responsibility.
Lieven held that the teenager’s right to liberty under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), would not be breached by his local authority depriving him of his liberty “because all agree it is in his best interests to remain at the children’s home” with extensive restrictions.
It was therefore “quite difficult to see what the point of a DoL is on the facts” of a case like this, stated the judge.
Register Now to Continue Reading
Thank you for visiting Children & Young People Now and making use of our archive of more than 60,000 expert features, topics hubs, case studies and policy updates. Why not register today and enjoy the following great benefits:
What's Included
-
Free access to 4 subscriber-only articles per month
-
Email newsletter providing advice and guidance across the sector
Already have an account? Sign in here
