Last week judges rejected an application for a judicial review of alocal authority's decision to house a homeless 17-year-old girl underhousing law, rather than child welfare legislation.
The Howard League for Penal Reform argued that the London Borough ofHammersmith & Fulham should have identified the girl as a child in needunder the Children Act 1989. This would have entitled her to leavingcare support from social services. The girl had a troubled backgroundand had spent time in a young offender institution. The league says ithas evidence of many vulnerable young children leaving custody and beingneglected by local authorities.
But Lord Justice Wall agreed with the council, which argued it would be"absurd" if a housing department had to turn away a homeless 17-year-oldwho had never been in care or looked-after by a local authority on thegrounds that social services had a duty to house her.
Conservative councillor Antony Lillis, Hammersmith's cabinet member forhealth and social services, said: "Although we're delighted that twosuccessive judges have ruled in our favour, we're disappointed that theHoward League chose to use this young person to promote their ownagenda.
"The adversarial court system can distort relationships and polarisepositions and we regret this. We take our responsibilities to youngpeople very seriously and we will continue to work with this young womanand others in the borough to support them appropriately."
The Howard League is considering appealing to the House of Lords. Itfears local authorities will misinterpret the ruling and see it as agreen light to deal with children through housing departments ratherthan providing them with social care support. The league's directorFrances Crook said: "Every year hundreds of challenging children andyoung people are released from prison with little or no back-up, is itany wonder that nearly 90 per cent are reconvicted of an offence?"
Wall said his judgment did not relax local authorities' duties toinvestigate children under 18 who might be in need. "It is self-evidentthat most troubled 16- and 17-year-olds will be unaware of the servicesavailable to them. And it is equally self-evident that the onus is noton children in need to identify and request the services theyrequire."
- The judgment is available atwww.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/917.html.
