In the matter of VV (Inherent Jurisdiction Order) (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Bailhache, W : Jurisdiction) [2025] JRC 245 (3 October 2025)

In the matter of VV (Inherent Jurisdiction Order) (Royal Court : Hearing (Civil) : Bailhache, W : Jurisdiction) [2025] JRC 245 (3 October 2025)

The Court refused to extend the Secure Accommodation Order, finding that statutory criteria were not met given VV's stabilised behaviour and Minister's intention to transition her to Accommodation D. The Court held it cannot lawfully grant coextensive Secure Accommodation and Inherent Jurisdiction Orders, as this would undermine the statutory scheme. Instead, the Court granted an Inherent Jurisdiction Order authorising proportionate restriction of liberty at Accommodation D overnight, as a protective and transitional measure, not amounting to deprivation of liberty.

Citation
[2025] JRC 245
Parties
Applicant: Minister for Children and Education; Subject Child: VV; Interested Party: Father of VV; Interested Party: Mother of VV; Guardian Ad Litem: Guardian
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
03 October 2025
Procedural Posture
Family Law Child Protection / Review Hearing of Secure Accommodation Order and Application for Extension/inherent Jurisdiction Orders
Outcome
Minister's application to extend Secure Accommodation Order refused; Inherent Jurisdiction Order granted for restriction of liberty at Accommodation D.
Legal Topics
Secure Accommodation Orders, Inherent Jurisdiction, Deprivation/restriction of Liberty, Best Interests of the Child, Statutory Interpretation, Capacity, Transition Planning
Family Law Child Protection Human Rights Secure Accommodation Orders Inherent Jurisdiction Deprivation/restriction of Liberty Best Interests of the Child Statutory Interpretation +2 more

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Minister for Children and Education

Applicant

VV

Subject Child

Father of VV

Interested Party

Mother of VV

Interested Party

Guardian

Guardian Ad Litem

Procedural Posture

Family Law Child Protection / Review Hearing of Secure Accommodation Order and Application for Extension/inherent Jurisdiction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Secure Accommodation Order should be extended
  2. 2 Whether the Court can grant coextensive Secure Accommodation and Inherent Jurisdiction Orders
  3. 3 Whether restriction of liberty at Accommodation D is lawful and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to extend the Secure Accommodation Order, finding that statutory criteria were not met given VV's stabilised behaviour and Minister's intention to transition her to Accommodation D. The Court held it cannot lawfully grant coextensive Secure Accommodation and Inherent Jurisdiction Orders, as this would undermine the statutory scheme. Instead, the Court granted an Inherent Jurisdiction Order authorising proportionate restriction of liberty at Accommodation D overnight, as a protective and transitional measure, not amounting to deprivation of liberty.

Court Disposition

Minister's application to extend Secure Accommodation Order refused; Inherent Jurisdiction Order granted for restriction of liberty at Accommodation D.

Orders

  • Refused extension of Secure Accommodation Order.
  • Granted Inherent Jurisdiction Order authorising restriction of liberty at Accommodation D from return date until 14 October 2025.