C (A Child), Re

C (A Child), Re

C is Gillick competent and consents in law and fact to his confinement; therefore, deprivation of liberty is not established and court authorisation under inherent jurisdiction is unnecessary.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; Respondent: D; Respondent: E; Respondent: C (A Child)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2017
Procedural Posture
Inherent Jurisdiction Application (children Act 1989) / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; court authorisation not required.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Children's Rights, Gillick Competence, Inherent Jurisdiction, Article 5 ECHR
Family Law Human Rights Deprivation of Liberty Children's Rights Gillick Competence Inherent Jurisdiction Article 5 ECHR

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

D

Respondent

E

Respondent

C (A Child)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Inherent Jurisdiction Application (children Act 1989) / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether C is deprived of liberty under the current residential regime
  2. 2 Whether C can in law and does in fact consent to his confinement
  3. 3 Whether the court should authorise deprivation of liberty under inherent jurisdiction

Ratio Decidendi

C is Gillick competent and consents in law and fact to his confinement; therefore, deprivation of liberty is not established and court authorisation under inherent jurisdiction is unnecessary.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; court authorisation not required.