In the matter of VV (Secure Accommodation Order) [2024] JRC 148 (21 June 2024)

judgment the deputy bailiff: 1. This is an application by the Minister for Children and Families for a secure accommodation order under Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002 in respect of VV, who is currently 14 years old but will be 15 in a few days' time and is currently a looked after child being subject to an interim care order granted on 30 May 2024 due to her being beyond parental control. We do not propose to set out in this brief ex tempore judgment the circumstances that led to that order being granted.

2. Since that order was made VV is supposed to have been ordinarily resident at Accommodation A, a children's home operated by the Minister where she was to live with another young person. Since last night she has been residing at Accommodation B under a secure accommodation authorisation.

3. Today we have heard from counsel for the Mother who does not oppose this application, counsel for the Father who supports the application and counsel for the child (who has also assisted the Guardian) who indicates that the Guardian accepts that the statutory test for making a secure accommodation order has been met. The Guardian does not oppose such an application but indicates that VV does resist such an application. VV did not wish to address the Court directly in Chambers early today but we accept that that is her view. She indicates that she would be prepared not only to return to Accommodation A but would promise to reside there.

4. The test for making a secure accommodation order under Article 22 of the Law is: "(1) Subject to the following provisions of this Article, a child who is being looked after by the Minister 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 - (a) that - (i) the child has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation, and (ii) if the child absconds, he or she is likely to suffer significant harm; or (b) that if the child is kept in any other description of accommodation he or she is likely to injure himself or herself or other persons." 5. We are satisfied from the evidence that we have heard that VV does have a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation and that if she did so she is likely to suffer significant harm.

6. Under Article 22 the Court has a discretion. Article 22(3) suggest that if the Court decides that the criteria for keeping a child in secure accommodation is satisfied, it " shall " make an order authorising the child to be so kept and specify the maximum period for which the child may be so kept.

7. It is clear from the case law that the word " shall " in these context means " may ." Such an order must be always considered with caution as it is exercising a discretion to limit a child's liberty, often against the child's will. We agree with the Minister that to all intents and purposes such an order must be the last resort.

8. Nonetheless in the circumstances of this case we do propose to exercise our discretion to make such an order. The reasons for doing so are a consequence of the evidence that we have heard today. We have heard from a number of witnesses. We have heard from the shift leader at Accommodation B who speaks of the accommodation that will be offered to VV there. We are satisfied that she will be kept safe at Accommodation B and if necessary, although that may not be necessary at all, she can be kept apart from other children currently in Accommodation B who are serving a sentence of youth detention.

9. We have heard from the social worker who indicates that VV, although being placed in Accommodation A on 3 June (which is now almost three weeks ago) has only spent two full nights at Accommodation A. She has gone missing repeatedly. When she has been found she has refused to return - opting to stay out in the community. On 9 June she escaped through a window and did not return to Accommodation A for some three days. We have been furnished with various police reports in relation to these matters, not all of which we will refer to in the course of this short judgment. For example on 8 June VV was located at 3:40am with a large group of youths, presenting as very upset and intoxicated. She was taken to hospital owing to concerns about her mental health. She waited there for 20 minutes before leaving without seeing any professionals. She had contacted the police control room an hour before saying she wanted to end her own life. She saw a police officer and reiterated her intentions to end her life, and was briefly detained by the police. The following log speaks about VV leaving Accommodation A on foot at 8:40pm and not returning, her being assessed under the Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 but discharged into the care of care workers and then having left the care home. Finally, again these are only examples, the log for the 13 June 2024 noted that VV had been reported missing at 12:30am, this was the 103 rd time that VV has been reported missing. The police report says that she is a 14 year old vulnerable juvenile who had been sleeping rough for months.

10. Further escalation in concern arose from the fact that on 19 June VV and another young person entered into a suicide pact which the other person followed through by taking an overdose of paracetamol. That person had to be kept in hospital overnight under observation. The social worker says, and this is a view supported by others, that it is only a matter of time before VV may come to significant harm.

11. These are not the only concerns. VV is now failing to attend school, notwithstanding the fact that she is academically promising. In addition to the threats of suicide and suicide ideation, VV is now encouraging, it appears, younger people to steal on her behalf including alcohol. She has been observed recruiting children aged 10 to 13 years. It is said that she is grooming other young people to commit crimes and also she is at risk from other people her age and older children and young people who have been involved in criminal conduct.

12. In addition to the social worker, we have heard evidence from the head of service at family support and safeguarding this morning. She gave evidence consistent with the material to which we have just referred and has confirmed that there will be school provision over the summer at Accommodation B if the order is granted. She also gave evidence about the necessity of challenging VV's entrenched behaviour by reducing access to the people with whom she has been associating recently by limitations on access to her mobile phone. The head of service told us, and we accept, that access to her mobile phone has had a negative impact on VV and it is the Children's Service which will determine the extent to which she will have access to her phone at Accommodation B. We agree with the proposal that VV should have a period without access to her phone and then supervised access thereafter, noting what has been said by counsel for the mother about the desirability, subject to the views of Children's Services, of her continuing to enjoy text and other contact with her parents.

13. We heard from Dr Murray, who has written a report that we have read and had regard to. He is a clinical psychologist and he concluded his evidence by saying that a secure accommodation order is in the best interest of VV because the pattern of behaviour in which she is currently engaging is very risky. It will be taking a toll on her physical and mental health and that the effect of loss of liberty in her case is outweighed by an immediate need for safety and her long term welfare. He supports the Minister's application for a secure accommodation order. He says that whilst at Accommodation B VV will need a period to settle in, a period to build up new relationships with people in Accommodation B and any plan will need to be drawn up which will take some time to implement. Implementation of that plan will take some weeks.

14. We note that Dr Murray also agreed that mobile phone use has been a trigger affecting both VV's mood and focus in an adverse way. He said that access to a mobile phone should be heavily restricted and supervised. Finally he said that accommodating VV at Accommodation A had been tried without success and he observed that every day that VV goes missing is another "role of the dice" and a risk of something adverse happening to her.

15. We finally heard in evidence from the Guardian. She observed that VV is now at serious risk of harm. She has been at risk of harm for a significant period of time, some 18 months. But the situation has now worsened, we were told, in two respects. Firstly the suicide pact which VV did not reject and secondly that she is now involved in criminality. The period at Accommodation B would give her an opportunity to catch up with her education and would bring other advantages as well.

16. In the circumstances we have, for the reasons to which we have referred, satisfied ourselves that the statutory test is met and that we should exercise our discretion to make a secure accommodation order for the 3 month period required. Completion of such a period may be important in order for their to be achievement of a meaningful change in VV's life and outlook and disruption of the entrenched behaviours to which we have referred.

17. We also approve the care plan, subject to the amendments that we have suggested, and we direct the Minister to provide an updated care plan by no later than 5pm on Wednesday.

18. We have given weight to VV's objection to this course of action but we firmly believe that this order is in her best interests. Authorities Children (Jersey) Law 2002. Mental Health (Jersey) Law 2016 Page Last Updated: 16 Jul 2024 Back to top About JLIB Accessibility Contacts Copyright Disclaimer Feedback Privacy policy Site map BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII