| Display title | Re SB [2024] EWHC 2964 (Fam) |
| Default sort key | Re SB (2024) EWHC 2964 (Fam) |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,427 |
| Page ID | 16009 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Counted as a content page | Yes |
| Page image |  |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 14:59, 21 November 2024 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 14:56, 13 December 2024 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 3 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 1 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | SB, a 15-year-old, was subject to an interim care order, and a deprivation of liberty order made under the High Court's inherent jurisdiction. The local authority argued that the court should declare that SB was within the scope of the MHA and that therefore the inherent jurisdiction could not be used. Its submissions were based on parity of argument with the Case E ineligibility provisions in the MCA, the interpretation given to them in GJ, and the approach taken by the court in JS. The High Court decided that the approach taken in JS did not apply to the inherent jurisdiction: to make a declaration about MHA detention would be to exercise an impermissible supervisory review function; if such a declaration were made as a means of influencing the professionals' decisions then it would be an abuse of process; in any event, the outcome might leave SB without protection from either regime. |
