Birmingham City Council v D (2016) EWCOP 8: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "''(1) A parent cannot consent to the confinement (i.e. the objective element of Article 5 deprivation of liberty) of a child who has attained the age of 16. (2) The confin...") |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
{{bailii|(2016) EWCOP 8}} | {{bailii|(2016) EWCOP 8}} | ||
{{link|https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2016/01/money-no-object-deprivation-of-liberty-for-16-17-year-olds-bottomless-resources-and-endless-state-imputability|Browne Jacobson, 'Money no object! Deprivation of liberty for 16 / 17 year olds, (bottomless?) resources and (endless?) state imputability' (29/1/16)|s}} | {{link|https://www.brownejacobson.com/health/training-and-resources/legal-updates/2016/01/money-no-object-deprivation-of-liberty-for-16-17-year-olds-bottomless-resources-and-endless-state-imputability|Browne Jacobson, 'Money no object! Deprivation of liberty for 16/17 year olds, (bottomless?) resources and (endless?) state imputability' (29/1/16)|s}} | ||
[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]] | [[Category:Deprivation of liberty]] |
Revision as of 23:04, 31 January 2016
(1) A parent cannot consent to the confinement (i.e. the objective element of Article 5 deprivation of liberty) of a child who has attained the age of 16. (2) The confinement was imputable to the state despite the accommodation being provided under s20 Children Act 1989, as the local authority had taken a central role; in any event, even if D's confinement were a purely private affair the state would have a positive obligation under Article 5(1) to protect him. (3) The judge did not resile from his previous judgment that D's parents could consent to his confinement in hospital when he was under 16.
Related judgments
External links
...
The following categories (in blue boxes) can be clicked to view a list of other pages in the same category: