JR233's Application
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Colton J |
| Judgment Date | 27 July 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] NIKB 79 |
| Date | 27 July 2023 |
| Court | King's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation No: [2023] NIKB 79
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down
(subject to editorial corrections)*
Ref: COL12217
ICOS No: 22/073631/01
Delivered: 24/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
(JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JR233 (A MINOR)
ACTING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
IN THE MATTER OF DECISIONS BY THE SOUTH EASTERN HEALTH
AND SOCIAL CARE TRUST
________
Mr Ronan Lavery KC with Ms Sinead Kyle (instructed by Nicholas Quinn Solicitors) for
the Applicant
Mr Philip Henry (instructed by the Directorate of Legal Services)
for the Respondent
________
COLTON J
Introduction
[1] The Judicial Review court is again compelled to grapple with a clash between
a child who has complex needs and a caring parent on the one side and a health trust
under immense pressure, facing huge demands with limited resources on the other.
The court has become all too familiar with such cases and struggles to find a
satisfactory resolution to the conflict.
[2] JR233 was born in May 2012. He lives with his mother. His father tragically
died of cancer in April 2022.
[3] He has diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder, severe learning disability,
neurodevelopment disorder with associated behaviour disturbance, Global
development delay, severe obstructive sleep apnoea, significant sleep disturbance,
overgrowth, anxiety and aggression.
[4] He has emotional and behavioural difficulties which leads to severe anxiety,
hyperactivity and challenging and aggressive behaviours. When he is distressed, he
2
can scream and cry unconsolably, nip, bite, pull hair, headbutt, grab clothes and lash
out. His behaviour can cause harm to himself and others around him.
[5] The applicant’s mother’s difficulties in caring for her son, particularly after
the death of her husband, are compounded by her own ill-health. She has a history
of depression and more recently has developed peroneal palsy in one of her legs.
[6] Unsurprisingly the Trust has been involved in the provision of assistance to
the applicant and his mother. The care provided by the Trust has involved
multi-disciplinary teams dealing with both care and medical issues. In terms of care
the primary provision has been by way of direct payments to the applicant’s mother
so that she can make arrangements for the applicant’s care. Central to the dispute in
this case is the issue of the provision of respite care.
[7] The history of the care provided is set out in the affidavits of Noelle Sloan,
who is a principal social worker in the Trust’s Children’s Disability Team. From
these affidavits and the voluminous documents exhibited thereto it emerges that
JR233 was first introduced to the Children’s Disability Team in 2014 and assessed
thereafter. His needs include medical and social care.
[8] In respect of social care, the family opted into the Direct Payments Scheme
which involves providing the family with a budget that they use to make the
arrangements for the care required for JR233.
[9] In 2019 the applicant received the following social care package:
(a) Two hours per week during term-time when at school;
(b) Those two hours were increased to 9 hours per week during school holiday
periods;
(c) No overnight short breaks (respite) were provided.
[10] At that time the family was asked by the Trust whether they wished to avail
of respite care but indicated they did not. They did agree to visit a Trust facility in
April 2019, namely Lindsay House, but they did not agree to provision of respite
there. The family expressed a concern about abuse of vulnerable service users in
Trust facilities, stemming from publicity arising from events at Muckamore Abbey
Hospital.
[11] During the initial acute periods of the Covid-19 pandemic the assigned social
worker was in regular contact with the family. The number of hours provided in the
applicant’s budget were increased.
[12] As is often the case there were some difficulties in identifying a carer from the
private sector to be funded by the Direct Payments budget. The family were able to
To continue reading
Request your trial