OC's (A Minor) Application and LH's (A Minor) Application In the matter of a decision by a Health and Social Care Trust
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judge | Keegan J |
| Judgment Date | 10 April 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] NIQB 34 |
| Date | 10 April 2018 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
1
Neutral Citation: [2018] NIQB 34 Ref:
KEE10614
Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down Delivered:
10/4/2018
(subject to editorial corrections)*
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE IN NORTHERN IRELAND
________
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (JUDICIAL REVIEW)
________
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY OC (A MINOR)
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY A HEALTH AND
SOCIAL CARE TRUST
AND IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY LH (A MINOR)
FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
AND IN THE MATTER OF A DECISION BY A HEALTH AND
SOCIAL CARE TRUST
________
KEEGAN J
This case is anonymised by agreement of all parties as it involves issues relating
to children. Nothing should be published which would identify the children or
their families.
[1] These applications for judicial review were heard together as they raise
similar issues. Both cases relate to the duties owing by the respective Health and
Social Care Trust (“the Trusts”) to provide accommodation to children when either
looked after or children in need. The questions arising for determination include
consideration of the extent of the duty, the timeframe within which it must be
discharged, and how it must be fulfilled with particular emphasis on the issue of the
suitability of accommodation that is provided by the Trusts.
[2] Mr White BL appeared on behalf of the applicant OC. Mr Mullan BL
appeared on behalf of the applicant LH. Mr Magee BL appeared on behalf of both
respondent Trusts. After the grant of leave I asked various interested bodies if they
wished to intervene. I am very grateful for the detailed responses of the Northern
Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (“NICCY”) who was
2
represented in these proceedings by Ms McCrory BL. I also received a
comprehensive submission from the Northern Ireland Children’s Law Centre
(“CLC”) comprised in an affidavit from Ms Paddy Kelly and associated
documentation. I received a letter from the Northern Ireland Human Rights
Commission expressing an interest in the case. The Police Service of Northern
Ireland (“PSNI”) also filed a written argument and Mr Henry BL appeared on its
behalf. I wish to commend all of the parties for their attention to detail and
elucidation of the very important issues in this case which relate to young people
who cross over between the care and juvenile justice systems.
[3] I granted leave in both cases largely on wider policy grounds given that
accommodation was found and bail was ultimately granted in both cases. However,
I was concerned about the type of accommodation suggested during the course of
hearings namely bed and breakfast/hotel accommodation. This hearing therefore
focussed on this issue. Mr Mullan also applied for specific declaratory relief in LH’s
case.
Background
[4] The background facts in each case are comprehensively recited in the
affidavits. I will not repeat them at length as they inevitably make difficult reading.
Both of these applicants have had difficult histories. OC is now 18 years of age
having achieved that milestone in December 2017. He has had a very difficult
history characterised by instability at home and drug use. He became a looked after
child in July 2017 when his father was imprisoned. Thereafter he experienced the
care of social services. The relevant Trust attempted to accommodate OC in various
bed and breakfast and hotel accommodation over a period without success. An
application was made for secure accommodation on 11 August 2017 and refused.
OC was then remanded in custody on 25 August 2017 for offences of disorderly
behaviour, drug possession and theft.
[5] At that stage OC was remanded into juvenile justice until the police and
social services could agree a suitable address. The remand was maintained until
1 September 2017 whenever OC was again placed in hotel accommodation. The
placement was short-lived and OC returned to juvenile justice. The evidence of the
Trust is set out in an affidavit with attached reports which refer to the very many
attempts to accommodate OC in various types of accommodation. In particular
there is a document entitled “accommodation OC was placed in since July 2017 to
13 December 2017” and that sets out a range of placements namely hotels, bed and
breakfasts and supported placements that were tried, all without success. The report
also points out that the Trust is now working in partnership with the Northern
Ireland Housing Executive in relation to accommodation options given that OC is 18.
[6] Counsel did not demur from the fact that OC is a troubled young man, with a
serious drug issue, and that he really is unmanageable. Throughout the reports
received in this hearing references are made to him having drug paraphernalia in
To continue reading
Request your trial
4 cases
-
JR233's Application
...It is well-established that Article 21(1) creates an absolute duty to provide accommodation for a child in need – see Re LH (A minor) [2018] NIQB 34. However, I do not consider that this applies to the circumstances of this case. Black J analysed the mirror legislative provisions in the Chi......
-
JR97 Application and South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust
...stream of jurisprudence in this jurisdiction to like effect: see Re JR66 [2012] NIQB 5, Re MP [2014] NIQB 52 at [71] especially and Re OC [2018] NIQB 34.To this we would add that there is no dispute that at the time when the impugned decision was made the qualifying conditions triggering th......
-
JR 262's Application for Judicial Review
...see how, if at all they inform the decision in this case. [57] Mr McQuitty said that the decision of Keegan J in Re OC (A Minor) and ors [2018] NIQB 34 (paragraph 17 of the skeleton argument) “is authority for the proposition that hotel accommodation will generally not be suitable for young......
-
JR245 Application
...[11] Two further decisions in 2018 added clarity to the requirements of Article 21 and 27 of the 1995 Order. Keegan J in Re OC and LH [2018] NIQB 34 at [50] confirmed that the duty to accommodate under Article 21 is absolute, it must be provided within a reasonable time, if liberty is at st......