England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

Case No: BB14C00042

IN THE Family Court

Sitting at LANCASTER COUNTY COURT

2^nd Floor

Mitre House

Church Street

Lancaster

LA1 1UZ

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

 AND IN THE MATTER OF: A (A CHILD)

Monday, 9^th June 2014

Before:

HER HONOUR JUDGE SINGLETON QC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Re: A (A Child)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counsel for the Local Authority: Miss Hobson

Counsel for the Mother: Miss Wall

Counsel for the Child: Mr Allen

Hearing dates: 5^th June and 9^th June 2014

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

APPROVED JUDGMENT

Transcribed from the Official Tape Recording by

Apple Transcription Limited

Suite 204, Kingfisher Business Centre, Burnley Road, Rawtenstall, Lancashire BB4 8ES

Telephone: 0845 604 5642 – Fax: 01706 870838

Number of Folios: 36

Number of Words: 2,561

JUDGMENT

1.                  THE    JUDGE:  A is the child with whom I am concerned.  He was born on 13^th March 1999 and is, therefore, 15 years old.  His mother is M.  A is the subject of an application by Lancashire County Council  for a secure accommodation order pursuant to section 25 of the Children Act 1989.  Lancashire has been represented by Miss Hobson of counsel, A’s mother by Miss Wall of counsel and A himself by Mr Allen of counsel, instructed by his children’s guardian, Z. 

2.                  A was first accommodated by the Local Authority in 2011.  He has not lived with his mother since then.  He was made subject to a care order on 14^th June 2012 amid a background of chaotic lifestyle on the part of his mother, her abuse of drugs and alcohol and violence between her and partners.  His childhood was marred by all of those factors and they justified the care order that was made.  He has not, therefore, lived at home with his mother since 2011.

3.                  This matter first came before me on Thursday of last week.  At that point, A was at the end of a custodial sentence consisting of a detention and training order of four months which was imposed on 7^th April of this year, 2014.  His release date was 7^th June 2014.  That date fell upon a Saturday and he could not be lawfully detained, therefore, beyond Friday, 6^th June.  He had, by the end of last week served half the period of his sentence.  The plan for his release was that he should be under a curfew and subject to a tag.

4.                  The chronology that the Local Authority have put before me in support of their application for a secure accommodation order to be utilised upon A’s release  makes extremely concerning reading.  It commences with events on 18^th February 2010 and runs until 27^th May 2014.  A was, by that point, serving his sentence at Rainsbrook Secure Unit in Rugby.  It is not necessary for me, for the purposes of this judgment, to go exhaustively through the incidents in that chronology.  A’s counsel last Thursday, 5^th June, told me that the history set down in the chronology is not in dispute.  I do note, however, that but A gave his instructions on that occasion over the telephone and has given them today over a video link. I therefore take into account that there may be some detail in that chronology which he does not agree.  Nevertheless the chronology establishes a terrifying history of A behaving both violently and in an assaultive sexual manner to women.  He has three convictions for indecent assault perpetrated upon women in addition to convictions for violence outside a sexual context.  A’s victims of his non sexual violence and of his sexual assaults include both his peers, the staff who look after him, or try to look after him, and strangers who he encounters.  A’s history, as set out in this document, is terrifying.  It seems to me proper on the evidence before me to conclude that A is a young man who presents a danger to the public and, indeed, to himself by reason of his behaviour.

5.                  He has been assessed extensively, most recently by an agency called G-map who were instructed by Lancashire County Council.  They submitted a report about him to the Local Authority which was not prepared for court purposes but which Lancashire have properly put before me to consider for the purposes of this application.  I quote simply one extract:

“[A’s] presentation both at G-map and in the establishments where he has resided is suggestive of a young man whose need for safety is expressed through intimidating behaviour, threats of violence, sexualised language and sexual behaviour.”

6.                  It is plain to me that A really ought to be kept in conditions of security whilst the Local Authority attempts to address the issues which beset him.  It is also plain that the criteria under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 are made out, sadly, in abundance. 

7.                  Section 25 (1) reads as follows:

“Subject to the following provisions of this section, a child who is being looked after by a local authority may not be placed, and, if placed, may not be kept, in accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty (‘secure accommodation’) unless it appears...

(b) that if he is kept in any other description of accommodation he is likely to injure himself or other persons.”

 I repeat that this statutory condition is, sadly, made out in abundance on the chronology that I have read which is largely not in dispute. I must therefore make an order which permits the Local Authority to place A in secure accommodation.

8.                  Accommodation for the purpose of a secure accommodation order must be accommodation which is authorised to be secure by the Secretary of State.  That proposition derives from subsection (7), which requires the appropriate national authority to put in place regulations under which secure accommodation can be so authorised.

9.                  When this matter came before me on Thursday last week, Lancashire County Council informed the Court that although there are 17 secure units in the country, none appeared then to have the facilities to accept A.  That is because, in those 17 secure units in the country, whilst there are 1,200 places for children or young people who have been subject to a criminal conviction and a custodial sentence there are only 60 allocated as welfare places. A, upon his release, from his custodial sentence, was to become a child in respect of whom a welfare place and not a criminal place was required.

10.              Since last Thursday I know that Lancashire County Council have been unstinting in their efforts to find a safe and proper placement for A both in his own interests and in the interests of the public and other people generally.  The senior manager, the team manager and the social worker allocated to him have been working around the clock and through last weekend to try and identify a placement for A.  They have also approached agencies with whom they should be able to work in partnership, including the Youth Offending Team, the Probation Service, the Department of Education and also the Ministry of Justice but they have not been able to identify a placement for A. This is despite approaches, in some cases repeatedly, to all of the 17 agencies with secure placements.  In some cases, that is simply because there are no welfare beds available.  In some cases, that is because the risks that A presents of sexual offending mean that the institutions concerned are not able to accommodate him.  In one case, for example, this is because they have a number of young women in placement.  In other cases, it is difficult to fathom what the issue is other than the high risk this young man presents might suggest that he is too much for them.

11.              I do not consider it appropriate to name those units who have declined to take A but simply to outline the facts which amount to a terrible national shortage of secure placements for children and young people who are a danger to themselves and others.  I have already said that there are 1,200 beds for young people who are convicted of criminal offences but only 60 for those who are subject to section 25 orders, referred to as “welfare beds”.  The Local Authority, during discussions with the Department of Education over the weekend about A was told that there were three other young people who were in the same position at the time of their enquiries.

12.              I was faced last Thursday with a young man who was to be released from custody on Friday for whom there was no secure placement available. This was despite him abundantly satisfying the criteria for a secure accommodation order.  I, therefore, adjourned the matter until today.  The Local Authority wished to seek from Rainsbrook Secure Unit, where he has been detained during his custodial sentence, information about any assessment or therapeutic work that has been done with him whilst he has been detained.  That information was not forthcoming from that unit. I do now have, in addition to the evidence filed with the application a helpful chronology prepared by the Local Authority of the exhaustive efforts that they have made to secure secure accommodation for him.

13.              Thus it was that, at two o’clock on Friday afternoon 6^th June 2014, A was released from custody and transported back to Lancashire, his home area. He had to be placed in a children’s home: a children’s home with six other children also in the placement.  The Local Authority seconded three additional staff into the home to look after A specifically having regard for the risks I have outlined in this judgment.  Notwithstanding that, A, having initially said that he was going to comply with the regime at the children’s home and having had a meal with a social worker and having spoken to his mother over the telephone, left that unit with another young person and stayed out until five o’clock in the morning.  Furthermore A does not dispute that, whilst he was out, he used cannabis, to which I have omitted to say he appears to have been addicted since before the age of 10 years.  Those events are extremely concerning in the circumstances of the chronology and the risks that I have outlined and those events strongly support the urgent need for A to be placed in a secure unit.

14.              The efforts so far made by the Local Authority have produced only a possibility of him going to a unit in south Wales.  Neither A nor his mother want him to be placed so far away from home but if that is the only placement available, then it seems to me it would be a proper placement, although, of course, my jurisdiction is simply to permit the Local Authority to place in secure accommodation.  The alternative to South Wales is a unit in Leeds where the Department of Education may be able to release a criminal bed to become a welfare bed.  That unit could still decline to take A because of the risks that he presents.

15.              The reason I have delivered this judgment and propose to authorise its publication is because this case demonstrates a gross shortage of resource.  The shortage necessarily creates a lack of protection for the public and for the dangerous young person/child unless and until a criminal offence, sufficiently serious to attract  a custodial sentence, is committed. Neither the Local Authority nor this court would want to see anything else happening in this case having regard for the already frightening chronology. Another incident would have every potential to be a serious incident having regard for the history I have read in respect of A.  The fact that I was told there were three other children in the same situation over last weekend means that it is only right for the circumstances in this case to be made public.

16.              For A, Lancashire County Council has pulled out all the stops, as I have already outlined, in order to find a proper placement for him now.  They have sought to address the immediate and the long term situation and have looked at what he might need in the Lancashire area upon his discharge from secure accommodation.  I have the advantage of a statement from their ACER team which sets out a plan for a placement that would be excellent for A, which, albeit not secure, might meet his needs upon his release from his next, desperately required, secure placement.  I should also record that A is due before the Magistrates Court tomorrow, having breached the terms of his release on licence by his Friday night absconsion.  It may be, therefore, that he will be recalled to a secure unit as part of his sentence, he having only served half his sentence and being liable to recall for those breaches.  However, such a recall might not be for the rest of the sentence and it might not occur at all.  It is therefore appropriate that I make a secure accommodation order under Section 25 of the Children Act 1989 as a safety net for A upon his release from custody.  The Local Authority plan for a bespoke placement for him is one that seems to me to be an excellent plan and demonstrates that Lancashire County Council does not seek to put a lack of resources in the way of meeting this young man’s needs and of seeking to place him somewhere where both he and the public are protected.

17.              This Judgment is to be transcribed at public expense and, apart from the Local Authority being identified as Lancashire, no professionals need be identified.

[Judgment ends]