R (S) v Sutton London Borough Council
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 May 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | Case No: CO/9680/2006 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 18 May 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Mr Justice Stanley Burnton
Case No: CO/9680/2006
Ian Wise (instructed by the Howard League for Penal Reform ) for the Claimant
Stephen Bellamy QC (instructed by Sutton Legal Services ) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: 12 March; 10, 18 May 2007
Stanley Burnton J :
Introduction
The Claimant is a 17-year-old girl, born on 26 July 1989. She has been referred to throughout as J, and notwithstanding the title to these proceedings I shall do so in this judgment.
On 27 January 2006, following her plea of guilty to robbery, she was sentenced to a 24-month Detention and Training Order. She served her sentence at Medway Secure Training Centre. Under the sentencing regime, she would spend half that sentence in detention and the second half in the community under supervision. She was also eligible for early release under home detention curfew, provided she had an address to live at suitable for electronic monitoring.
These proceedings were commenced on 16 November 2006. J was then seeking to compel the Defendant to provide suitable accommodation for her so as to enable her to be released from Medway STC on 24 November 2006. As will be seen, she was so released into accommodation, the suitability of which is no longer an issue. She now seeks judicial review of the following:
(a) The refusal of the Defendant to accept that she had been accommodated by it for more than 13 weeks and that she was therefore an eligible child within the meaning of paragraph 19B of the Second Schedule to the Children Act 1989 ("the Act") entitled to the benefits specified in the Act and Regulations;
(b) Its failure to make arrangements to accommodate her pursuant to section 20(1)(c) of the Act;
(c) Its alleged failure to carry out a lawful assessment of her needs in accordance with the "Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families" ("the Framework").
J seeks:
(a) A declaration that she has been accommodated under section 20 of the Act since her release from custody on 24 November 2006; and
(b) An order requiring the Defendant to provide an assessment of her needs as required by the Framework.
After distribution of my draft judgment, further written submissions were made on behalf of J, in particular on the questions that had arisen under section 20 of the Act, which led to the case being restored for further argument on 10 May 2007. Shortly before my revised judgment was to be handed down, Mr Wise brought to my attention the recent judgment of Holman J in H and others v London Borough of Wandsworth and others [2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), and requested further reconsideration. On 18 May 2007, I heard further short submissions. I express my gratitude to Holman J for his detailed and helpful exegesis of the legislative provisions. In the time available, I have regrettably been able to refer to his judgment only briefly.
I confess having found this case troubling. I have sympathy with the positions of both parties. The interrelationship between sections 17 and 20 of the Act and the obligations of a local authority as a housing authority are not obvious. Clearly, local authorities should not be able to avoid their duty under section 20 inappropriately simply by offering accommodation under the Housing Act 1996. It is important that local authorities and those advising children claimants have so far as possible a clear understanding of the obligations of those authorities. It is for this reason that I have granted permission to appeal.
The facts
At the times relevant to these proceedings, J was estranged from her mother, but not her father. They both had parental responsibility. J had an unfortunate history even before the events which are the subject of these proceedings. They begin with the robbery she committed in April 2005, when she was aged 15. On 2 August 2005, she appeared at Wimbledon Youth Court; she was committed to Kingston Crown Court, and remanded on bail. On 17 August, she appeared before Sutton Youth Court for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on her mother; she was remanded to local authority care. On 27 September, that Court varied the terms of her remand: she was permitted to reside with her father. On 27 October 2005, she appeared at Kingston Crown Court in respect of the robbery; she was remanded to secure accommodation. On 8 November 2005, the Crown Court granted her bail on condition that she lived at her father's address in South Godstone in Surrey. In a letter to the Crown Court dated 10 November 2005, Sutton Youth Offending Team stated that the placement had failed, that within a matter of hours her father said that she was unable to stay with him, and:
Members of Sutton YOT picked (J) up, and placed her with Pauline Williams at (an address in) Orchard Avenue, Mitcham, Surrey. Pauline is a family friend, and Jade's father has now given permission for (J) to stay with Pauline. She has stayed with Pauline previously as part of her bail conditions.
We are proposing that her bail conditions be varied to live as directed by Social Services, with her current address being with Ms Williams …
Following receipt of this letter, on 11 November 2005 the Crown Court varied the conditions of her bail so as to require her to reside at Ms Williams' address.
As mentioned above, on 27 January 2006, J was sentenced to a 24-month DTO for the robbery. On 31 January 2006 she was sentenced to a 12-month DTO for the assault, to be served concurrently.
In its letter of 20 June 2006, the Defendant said that on her release she would be encouraged to return to live with her father on her release; otherwise she would be treated as a homeless person. In an email in reply of that same date, the Howard League, who acted on her behalf, said that she had little contact with her father and was unable to live with either of her parents on her release. They stated that they believed her to be a child in need (section 17 of the Children's Act 1989) and required accommodation on her release under section 20 of that Act.
In July 2006, J's case was allocated to June Webb, a social worker in Sutton YOT. According to Ms Webb's witness statement dated 7 February 2007, during her meetings with her J made it clear that she did not want to live in Sutton, nor to be accommodated by Sutton on her release.
The Howard League wrote formally to the Defendant on 15 August 2006. They asked that the Defendant undertake an assessment of the claimant pursuant to section 17 of the Act and Local Authority Circular (2004)26. They said that she had a poor relationship with her father, who had a new partner and family; and the claimant did not get on with his new partner. Previous placements with him had failed. They said that the claimant was likely to be released on 24 November 2006. They said that they understood that she had been remanded to the care of the local authority under section 23 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, and placed at Oakhill Secure Training Centre for a period of 12 days, following which she had been placed, unsuccessfully, with her father. Their letter continued:
"Homeless team and housing legislation
We note that your client is planning to refer our client to the homeless team. We urge your client to reconsider its position. Our client is a child who will be homeless and in need which imposes a duty on your client to engage with our client pursuant to s20 Children Act 1989. The homeless persons regulations preclude children for whom s20 CA 1989 is engaged. Please note we will vigorously resist any attempt by your client to evade its duties of accommodation and support to our client.
Legal basis for this request
We refer to local authority circular (2004)26. This is relevant as our client is in custody, is a child in need and will require suitable accommodation and support on release. As our client was "looked after" prior to being sentenced your client has a duty to maintain contact with her and make preparations for her release. This could include a core assessment and we ask that this is completed."
On 23 August 2006, Sara Gardner, a social worker with Sutton, was appointed as J's allocated social worker. On 1 September 2006, Ms Gardner completed J's Initial Assessment. It confirmed that she did not want to live in Sutton on her discharge but near her father.
Ms Gardner completed a core assessment on 19 October 2006. In her witness statement, Ms Gardner stated:
(J's) father was not able to offer accommodation to 'J' due to her difficult relationship with his partner.
And:
"During the assessment process J made the following matters very clear:
…
b. She did not want to live in the London Borough of Sutton on her release from Medway …
c. She did not want to be accommodated by the London Borough of Sutton when she was released from Medway (the concept and meaning of accommodation under the Children Act 1989 was (sic) fully explained to her).
d. She wanted to live near her father in the Godstone area of Surrey.
e. She wanted her own 3 or 4 bedroom house.
…. J was … not a child who required accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. She had parents with parental responsibility for her, she (had) not been lost or abandoned and no one appeared to be prevented from providing her with accommodation. The friend she had lived with had not on the information we had, been caring for her but merely providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of Liverpool City Council) v Hillingdon London Borough Council
...that in fact he does not 'require' accommodation, and in any event cannot force him into accommodation if he does not want it.” 25 In R (S) v. LB Sutton [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin) at [51], Stanley Burnton J said: “I certainly find it difficult to see that section 20(6), which would seem to be......
-
R (G) v London Borough of Southwark
...County Council [2007] EWHC 2364; R (D) v Southwark London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 182, [2007] 1 FLR 2181; R (S) v Sutton London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 790, 10 CCLR 615. The message of those cases is that if the section 20 duty has arisen and the children's authority have......
-
R (M) v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council
...[2007] EWCA Civ 182, [2007] 1 FLR 2181; H v Wandsworth London Borough Council [2007] EWHC 1082 (Admin), (2007) 10 CCLR 441; R (S) v Sutton London Borough Council [2007] EWCA Civ 790; and R (L) v Nottinghamshire County Council [2007] EWHC 2364 38 In Southwark London Borough Council v D ......
-
R (A) v Coventry City Council
...UKHL 14, [2008] 3 FCR 688, [2008] 4 All ER 271, [2008] 1 WLR 535, [2008] 1 FLR 1384. R (on the application of S) v Sutton London BC [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin), [2007] 2 FLR 849; rvsd in part[2007] EWCA Civ 790, [2007] All ER (D) 422 AppealBy amended grounds for which permission was given on 3......
-
Mother Abuse: A Matter of Youth Justice, Child Welfare or Domestic Violence?
...no mention is made of mother abuseas a particular form of interpersonal violence.57Even the growing body of28254 R (S) v. Sutton LBC [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin) [40], not appealed on this point: see[2007] EWCA Civ. 790.55 ParentlinePlus, op. cit., n. 16.56 Laming, op. cit. (2009), n. 52, p. 30......
-
Legal Commentary: Accommodation, Services and Support: Local Authority Responsibilities under the Children Act 1989
...– dealt with fi rst in the Administrative Court and then on appeal (S. (R. on the application of ) v London Borough of Sutton [2007] EWHC 1196 (Admin) (May 2007) and [2007] EWCA Civ 790 (July 2007)) – illustrates the complexities of Part 3 of the Act (‘Local Authority Support for Children ......