AK, a child by her mother and litigation friend GK v The London Borough of Islington
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lickley |
| Judgment Date | 16 February 2021 |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] EWHC 301 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/3577/2020 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 16 February 2021 |
[2021] EWHC 301 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
HIS HONOUR JUDGE Lickley QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
Case No: CO/3577/2020
The Queen -on the Application of-
and
Mr Armitage (instructed by Hopkin Murray Beskine Solicitors) for the Claimant
Mr Rutledge QC (instructed by Community Services Solicitor Legal Services Islington) for the First and Second Defendant
Hearing dates: 19 th, 20 th January 2021
Approved Judgment
His Honour Judge Lickley QC sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court:
This matter concerns a claim by AK against the London Borough of Islington (Children Services Department) and the North Central London Clinical Commissioning Group alleging that the defendants failed to adequately assess and plan for her needs following her discharge from hospital pursuant to s.117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 83). I shall refer to the Claimant as AK and her mother as GK in this judgement.
Leave was granted in relation to that claim however AK seeks permission to argue a secondary claim which I refer to as the S.17 Children Act 1989 (CA89) issue. For the purposes of the hearing it was agreed that that issue be argued as part of a ‘rolled up hearing’. Another claim alleging a failure to produce a timely Education, Health and Care plan (EHCP) concerning a child's special educational provision pursuant to s.37(1) Children and Families Act 2014 has been abandoned and is not pursued.
I give permission for the parties to rely upon the additional witness statements of GK and Mr Mathison on behalf of the defendants.
Background
AK is now 16, suffers with autism and from a range of severe mental health issues including PTSD resulting from a serious sexual assault by a stranger. At the time the claim was issued on 6/10/20 AK had been resident and a patient at Simmons House a secure psychiatric hospital for some months. For a period of time she was detained by virtue of an order made pursuant to s.3 MHA 83 but was due for discharge to a specialist residential placement. The claim sought a mandatory order requiring the defendants to co-operate to carry out a full assessment of AK's needs for aftercare services under s.117 MHA 83 and to provide a care plan for meeting those needs. On 8/10/20 the defendants provided an updated Child and Family Assessment. By the time this case came before me for hearing things had moved on. AK was discharged from Simmons House on 16/11/20 and had commenced a placement at Stradbroke, an independent school provided by Tulip Care, where she currently resides. That provision has been funded and costs approximately £250,000 per year. On 19/11/20 further documentation was supplied including documents relating to the planning for AK's discharge from hospital going back to May 2020.
The case, in particular, concerns the adequacy and thoroughness of the s.117 MHA 83 assessment conducted for the purposes of discharge on the 16/11/20. The document a Discharge CPA & Summary (DCPA) is dated the 16/11/20. There is no dispute that there was an assessment however I am asked to consider whether that assessment was undertaken in accordance with the duties and responsibilities that both defendants owed to AK at the time in particular in relation to the applicable Code of practice namely the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice (the Code).
AK alleges there are deficiencies in that assessment and planning for her ongoing care and that the defendants have failed to comply with the Code. The defendants contend that the assessment and planning conducted was appropriate and that there has been no breach of duty towards to AK. A subsidiary but linked important issue has arisen in relation to the level of scrutiny that I should apply. There is some broad agreement between the parties that because this case concerns an extremely vulnerable young person under the age of 18 the level of scrutiny the court should apply is identical if not broadly similar to that applied by the courts when considering the adequacy and lawfulness of s. 17 CA 89 assessments. A further short point concerns the extent to which the two defendants owe different duties to AK pursuant to the Code however, again, there is broad agreement that for practical purposes the Code and its provisions applied and were relevant statutory guidance at the time the assessment was conducted. Finally, to avoid what might be termed rolling judicial review the parties are agreed that the point at which I must consider the adequacy or otherwise of the assessment is the date of discharge namely the 16/11/20. I should add that there is no complaint made in these proceedings as to the adequacy or otherwise of the Stradbroke placement. There remains however an ongoing concern that the assessment conducted at the point of discharge remains inadequate to meet her needs and that remains the responsibility of the defendants despite the services provided at Stradbroke.
Before embarking upon my review of the assessment it is necessary to set out in summary form the background to this case. The history of the many challenges that AK faces are principally set out in the witness statements of her mother GK dated 23/9/20, 23/9/20 and a further updating statement dated 14/12/20 expressing ongoing concerns post AK's move to Stradbroke. It is not necessary for me to set out all of the historical background details given that there is no dispute that AK has suffered in the way described and continues to suffer as a result of her ongoing mental health issues and other challenges. Therefore, in summary only;
(i) AK was born on 2/2/05 and is therefore now 16 years of age. From a young age she witnessed serious domestic violence from her father towards GK.
(ii) AK was admitted to Simmons House an inpatient psychiatric unit for young people, which is part of the Whittington Hospital within the second defendant's area, in February 2019. She had been to that point unwell for some time receiving treatment in the community and is described as being anxious, tearful and unable to get to or to stay at school. At that time, she was washing and cleaning herself compulsively, was not eating and had lost a lot of weight. GK describes AK suffering from panic attacks, chest pains, bad nightmares and AK had started to hear voices and see visions. The admission to Simmons House was a planned admission because the situation was described as getting worse not better. The admission was therefore voluntary. In addition, AK had been diagnosed as suffering from PTSD as a result of suffering a serious sexual assault by a stranger when she was 13 years old.
(iii) GK described that while at Simmons House AK's health deteriorated and she started to self-harm and talk about suicide making a number of suicide attempts. As a result, there were periods when AK was detained under s.2 MHA 83 for assessment, under emergency detention pursuant to s.5(2) MHA 83 and finally under s.3 MHA 83 being detention for treatment beginning on 11/10/19. In November 2019 AK was diagnosed with an autistic spectrum condition which assisted her in understanding her own needs and GK describes AK's mental health difficulties lessening and that she seemed to be making good progress.
(iv) The s.3 MHA 83 detention was extended following a tribunal hearing on 22/5/20 until 13/7/20. At the end of that period and following a steady improvement in AK's mood and behaviour no further extension was sought and AK remained at Simmons House as a voluntary patient. At around this time it appears that the clinical team based at Simmons House had informed GK that AK was making progress sufficient to start planning for her discharge.
(v) Unfortunately, AK's health deteriorated significantly when she saw the perpetrator of the sexual assault near to her current home on 30/7/20 during a home visit. Following that GK describes a series of incidents involving AK including self-harm, running away from Simmons House and further attempts on her life.
(vi) 25/8/20 a meeting of the joint agency panel involving both defendants resulted in an agreement to fund a residential placement for AK at Stradbroke an independent special school in Woodford Green operated by the provider Tulip Care providing boarding facilities for girls aged between 8 to 16.
(vii) 17/9/20 the Central Family Court in London granted an application by the first defendants for an Interim Care Order (ICO) and a Deprivation of Liberty Order (DLO) in connection with AK's proposed discharge from Simmons House and the commencement of the residential placement at Stradbroke.
(viii) 23/9/20 AK's move to Stradbroke was paused as a result of relevant staff needing to self-isolate due to COVID-19 symptoms.
(ix) 1/10/20 the Central Family Court in London discharged the ICO there being no application to extend it but did extend the DLO for a further 15 weeks.
(x) 16/11/20 AK was discharged from Simmons House and moved to Stradbroke where she still resides.
The relevant documentation pertaining to the assessment of AK's needs leading up to and at the time of her move to Stradbroke require consideration. A helpful timeline has been prepared by Mr Rutledge QC setting out the chronology and cross-referencing that to the various documents in the papers before me. The reports, assessments and minutes of meetings go back to the time when the AK was admitted to Simmons House on...
To continue reading
Request your trial