RK v BCC & Ors

RK v BCC & Ors

The restrictions imposed on RK's liberty did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, as they were reasonable and necessary to protect her and others, and were consented to by her parents. Even if parental consent under section 20(8) Children Act 1989 is not conclusive, the facts did not support a finding of deprivation of liberty.

Parties
Appellant: RK; First Respondent: BCC; Second Respondent: YB; Third Respondent: AK
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Protection Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Parental Consent, Article 5 ECHR, Section 20 Children Act 1989
Mental Capacity Human Rights Family Law Deprivation of Liberty Parental Consent Article 5 ECHR Section 20 Children Act 1989

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RK

Appellant

BCC

First Respondent

YB

Second Respondent

AK

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Court of Protection Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the restrictions imposed on RK's liberty amounted to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether parental consent under section 20(8) Children Act 1989 precludes a finding of deprivation of liberty

Ratio Decidendi

The restrictions imposed on RK's liberty did not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR, as they were reasonable and necessary to protect her and others, and were consented to by her parents. Even if parental consent under section 20(8) Children Act 1989 is not conclusive, the facts did not support a finding of deprivation of liberty.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Reporting restrictions imposed to prevent identification of parties