Jake (a child), Re

Jake is now sixteen years old. On 4^th July 2024 he was convicted of three serious sexual offences and was subsequently sentenced to two and half years’ custody. He was released on licence on 30^th July 2025. He will remain on licence until 29^th October 2026.

By an application dated 24^th July 2025 the applicant local authority sought an order authorising the deprivation of Jake’s liberty (“a DOLs order”). This Court made a DOLs order on 29^th July 2025 with a hearing on 21^st August 2025, which came before me, to consider whether the DOLs order should be continued. The local authority’s application raises a point as to the interaction between the Court’s powers under its inherent jurisdiction to exercise its powers of deprivation of liberty and the licensing regime for the release of young offenders. Counsel have been unable to find any guidance on this point in the caselaw.

On hearing the matter on 21^st August 2025 I indicated that I would reserve my judgment, but made an order extending the DOLs order to 11.59pm on 27^th August 2025 to preserve the parties’ positions. The order I made permitted the local authority pursuant to section 100 of the Children Act 1989 to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The operative part of the order declared:

“7.

It is lawful and in the best interest of Jake that the local authority Staffordshire County Council be permitted to deprive Jake of his liberty by placing him at [an address in Wrexham] pursuant to article 5 [of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”)] and accordingly such deprivation of liberty is authorised until 23:59 hours on 27 August 2025.

8.

The deprivation of liberty sought by the local authority and permitted by the court is necessary to avoid breaching Jake’s EHCR Article 2 and 3 rights, the least restrictive and most proportionate response to the risk of harm which arises and may include:

a.

Jake will subject to a 1:1 ratio at all times both within and outside his placement;

b.

Jake’s bedroom is monitored by alarms which will alert staff if Jake has left his bedroom at night and to ensure that he does not enter another young person’s room;

c.

There are window restrictors on the windows of the home

These provisions in place for Jake are necessary, the least restrictive and a proportionate response to the risk of harm which arise.

9.

In depriving Jake of his liberty, the local authority is directed to use the minimum degree of force or restraint required only in circumstances that these are necessary. The use of such force/restraint is lawful and in his best interests provided always that the measures are:

a.

The least restrictive of Jake’s rights and freedoms;

b.

Proportionate to the anticipated harm;

c.

The least required to ensure Jake’s safety and that of others; and

d.

Respectful of Jake’s dignity.”

The background can be taken from the pre-sentence report prepared following Jake’s conviction in the criminal proceedings. The report says (correcting some minor infelicities in the English):

“Jake was a Child in Care in the Derby area from a very young age when he was removed from his mother’s care for neglect. He was placed in foster care and removed at the age of 6 when he was a victim of sexual assault from a 17-year-old male at the foster placement. Following this Jake was placed in the care of his paternal grandmother who was granted a Special Guardianship Order in 2016. [H]e continued to reside with his grandmother until she began to struggle with his behaviours linked to his own trauma from his childhood. In June 2023 Jake spent a short time with a family friend to try and ease the pressure his grandmother was feeling and for Children’s Services to put support in place. Unfortunately, this placement broke down as their relationship deteriorated and Jake was again placed as a Child in Care in July 2023 in a residential home in Hereford.

Whilst in Hereford further concerns were raised around Jake’s behaviour. He began using drugs and alcohol, there were frequent missing episodes and Jake was linked to peers who were well known to the Police. He was assessed as a high risk of criminal exploitation. There were occasions where staff at the home or who he was with and there were concerns for his safety and the safety of others. Jake was removed from this placement and returned to a residential home in Staffordshire in October 2023.

From this time Jake was frequently reported as a missing child and the longest absence was 5 days. During this time, he was heavily under the influence of drugs and alcohol. He admits to using cannabis, cocaine, Ketamine and drinking large amounts of alcohol to the point where is not in control and stated that he enjoys this feeling. There were also links to criminal activity and being in possession of weapons, namely knives/machetes. Jake would not disclose where he had been on these episodes or who he was with and there were concerns that he was at high risk of exploitation. Safety plans were put in place but Jake would not adhere to them. He continued to want to be with his friends. This continued until Jake was placed on remand at [a child detention facility] at his first appearance at Court on 30th April 2024, for the offences before Court today.”

On 6^th June 2024 the local authority was granted an interim care order in respect of Jake. On 18^th December 2024 Her Honour Judge Bailey sitting in the Family Court in Stoke-on-Trent granted the local authority a full care order.

In the meantime, on 4^th July 2024, Jake was convicted at Kidderminster Youth Court of the vaginal rape of a fourteen-year-old girl between 26^th and 29^th April 2024, digital penetration of the girl’s vagina between the same dates and oral rape of a fourteen-year-old girl on 26^th April 2024. He had been denied bail and kept in custody at [a child detention facility] from 30^th April 2024. The Youth Court considered its sentencing powers inadequate and committed him in custody to the Crown Court for sentence. At the Crown Court he was sentenced as a young person be detained for two and a half years pursuant to sections 249(1)(a) and 250 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

Jake contended at trial and still contends that the sexual relations were consensual, but the Youth Court did not accept that defence. Jake shows no contrition. He has brought no appeal against his convictions.

He was released on licence on 30^th July 2025 after serving half the custodial period imposed by the Crown Court (credit being given for the period from 30^th April 2024, when he was on remand). The licence is granted in the name of the Secretary of State. The period of the licence runs to 29^th October 2026, which is when the two and a half year sentence would expire after credit is given for the time spent on remand. He is under the supervision of [a named officer] of the Staffordshire Youth Justice Service presumably pursuant to section 38(4)(i) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Although the Staffordshire Youth Justice Service is funded by the local authority, neither the Service nor its Youth Offender Team (“YOT”) which manages Jake have taken part in this application.

There are thirteen conditions of the licence under which he has been released. The first nine can be summarised as these: (i) to be “of good behaviour and not behave in a way which undermines the purpose of the licence period”; (ii) not to commit any offence; (iii) to keep in touch with his supervising officer; (iv) to receive visits from his supervising officer; (v) to reside permanently at a named address in Wrexham “and obtain the prior permission of the supervising officer for any stay of one or more nights at a different address”; (vi) not to undertake work, or a particular type of work, unless it is approved by the supervising officer; (vii) not to travel outside the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man except with the prior permission of his supervising officer; (viii) to tell his supervising officer if he uses a different name to that on the licence; and (ix) to tell his supervising officer if he changes any contact details. The remaining four I should quote in full, since the impact of these is controversial:

“(x)

Confine yourself to an address approved by your supervising officer between the hours of 21:00 and 07:00 daily unless otherwise authorised by your supervising officer. This condition will be reviewed by your supervising officer on a monthly basis and may be amended or removed if it is felt that the level of risk that you present has reduced appropriately;

(xi)

To comply with any requirements specified by your supervising officer for the purpose of ensuring that you address your sexual offending;

(xii)

To comply with any requirements specified by your supervising officer to register and engage with an education provider;

(xiii)

To comply with any requirements specified by your supervising officer to register and engage with housing/your support networks.”

Paragraph 8 of the licence warns:

“If you fail to comply with any requirement of your supervision… or if you otherwise pose a risk to the public, you will be liable to have this licence revoked and be recalled to custody until the date on which your licence would otherwise have ended. If you are sent back to prison and are re-released before the end of your licence, you will still be subject to licensed supervision until the end of your sentence.

In her first witness statement, the social worker giving evidence on the local authority’s behalf, said:

“37.

As part of the risk assessment process for Jake, an AIM3 (Assessment, Intervention, Moving On – Version 3) analysis was completed, as requested by the [criminal] Court. The AIM3 framework is designed to assess children and young people who have engaged in, or are suspected of engaging in, Harmful Sexual Behaviour (HSB).

38.

Jake scored in the red category for sexual behaviours, developmental influences, and self-regulation, indicating a need for urgent intervention. He scored amber in the remaining domains. These results suggest that Jake requires comprehensive support across all five domains to address both the trauma he has experienced and the risk of continued harmful behaviour.

39.

Using both the AIM3 and AssetPlus assessments, Jake has been assessed as posing a high risk of re-offending, serious harm to others, and risk to his own safety and wellbeing.

40.

The assessment of serious harm is based on Jake’s high-risk behaviours in the community, his attitudes towards HSB, and his failure to accept responsibility for his actions.

41.

There is a significant level of concern should Jake be released without intensive support. Jake has been in an artificial environment for over a year now and although he has engaged well and we have seen improvements in his behaviours there are still a high level of concern in regard to his risks.

42.

The initial plan is for Jake to remain at [a named residential placement] for 12 weeks, then reviewed monthly, this is to enable him to complete therapy and complete work that is on his licence conditions.

Why the measures implemented are necessary, proportionate and no less measure will suffice

43.

The current level of supervision provided to Jake is considered necessary to mitigate the risk of potential reoffending. This approach is viewed as a less restrictive alternative that still allows Jake the opportunity to develop greater independence.

44.

Jake has been placed at [the detention centre] for over 12 months, and it is assessed that he continues to require one-to-one support, along with environmental safeguards such as door alarms, to effectively manage his risks.

45.

In addition to the application for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation, Jake will also be subject to licence conditions upon release, which will further support the management of his behaviour and promote public safety…

Conclusions and Order Sought

51.

Following consultation, there remain significant concerns regarding Jake’s risk upon release… Although he will have served 15 months on remand by the time of his release on licence, concerns persist regarding his previous offending behaviour, risk of absconding, and ongoing substance misuse.

52.

While Jake has made notable progress during his time at [the detention centre], it is important to recognise that this progress has occurred within a highly structured and controlled environment. He has not yet engaged in therapeutic work to address his offending behaviour or the underlying trauma from his childhood. The setting at [the detention centre], with its strict routines and constant supervision, has contributed to his stability; however, this does not necessarily reflect how he may respond in a less restrictive environment.

53.

Given these factors, it is considered essential that Jake continues to receive one-to-one support post-release, alongside environmental safeguards, to manage the identified risks effectively.

54.

As previously outlined, while the positive changes Jake has made are acknowledged, they have occurred in an environment that is atypical for a young person—characterised by continuous supervision and intensive support. It is therefore recommended that a similar level of intensive support be maintained post-release to allow for a more accurate assessment of Jake’s needs and behaviours in a less restrictive, yet still safeguarded, setting.

55.

In light of the above, the Local Authority respectfully invites the Court to grant a Deprivation of Liberty Order (DoLS) in respect of Jake, to support his current and ongoing care needs. The Local Authority is requesting an initial period of three months, subject to regular review, to ensure that Jake’s needs are being met and that the associated risks are being appropriately managed.

56.

Once Jake has engaged in and completed the necessary therapeutic interventions, consideration may be given to the possibility of reunification with his grandmother, subject to further assessment and professional agreement.”

In her second witness statement dated 7^th August 2025, [she] says:

“Jake moved into [the Wrexham property] on 30th July 2025, care staff are beginning to build a relationship with Jake and helping him to continue with developing his independence skills, which Jake started to develop while he was in [the detention centre]. Due to the significant concerns in Jake’s previous behaviours and with only recently being released, the care team continue to feel that there should no changes to the way Jake is supported, or the arrangements within the home.

Jake has his own Annex, where he has access to his own bathroom, kitchen, living area and bedroom, there are no locks on the door, however door alarms are in place, the alarm is always activated at night and currently when Jake is left alone in his annex this is to alert staff if Jake has left his room. There are no locks on the windows, but the windows are not locked there [are] however, restrictors on them limiting how wide windows can be opened.

Jake continues to be supervised 1:1 by his care team. The care team… have not raised any initial concerns around Jake, he is beginning to build relationships with staff members. Jake however does show some concerns in regard to his release. Jake was wanting to be able to have more free time without staff and wants access to a mobile phone to ‘talk to friends’. There are still concerns around Jake’s previous friendships prior to being remanded. Jake’s level of independence within the community continues to be limited. Jake is not currently having any time alone within in the community but during the time Jake is at [the residential placement] this will be increased slowly with support from staff. There are no changes to Jake’s accessibility of the areas within the home and surrounding areas of the home. Jake’s allocated social worker continues to undertake statutory visits at the required intervals. During these visits, Jake has expressed a desire to spend increased time… with his family and has requested access to a mobile phone. At this stage, it is considered that these requests cannot be accommodated due to Jake’s current status. It is felt that further trust and stability need to be established between Jake and the professionals involved in his care before such changes can be safely and appropriately considered.

Jake is currently settling well into his placement… and is demonstrating engagement with the support process. While he is participating positively, he continues to express frustration regarding the restrictions imposed by both his Licence conditions and the [DOLs] order. Jake has acknowledged the rationale behind these measures but has voiced concerns that the process of reviewing and amending these boundaries may be prolonged, stating that it feels as though it will take ‘forever’ for any changes to occur. Jake has also disclosed a pattern of behaviour from previous experiences, whereby he has chosen to go missing when he perceives that progress is not being made quickly enough. This insight is important in understanding the potential risks and emotional responses that may arise if Jake feels unsupported or unheard during this period of intervention but does also increase the risks of Jake previous risky behaviours…

Jake is scheduled to commence therapeutic interventions in September, with [a therapist] delivering EDMR [Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing] therapy. This intervention was initially planned to take place at [the detention centre]. In preparation, Jake will engage in weekly sessions prior to September to begin establishing therapeutic relationships with professionals involved in his care…

Jake’s allocated Youth Offending Service Officer, will also be undertaking sessions with Jake. However, it has been agreed that therapeutic input should be prioritised as the initial approach to support Jake, before addressing his offending behaviours. It is noted that Jake continues to deny any involvement in the offence…

At this time, it is considered necessary for a [DOLs] order to be in place for an initial period of three months. This will provide Jake with the opportunity to continue settling into his placement, while allowing… staff [at the placement] and involved professionals to further assess and understand the risks associated with his care. The DOLs order will also support the commencement of therapeutic interventions in a structured and positive manner and enable Jake to adjust to the new routine at [the Wrexham property]. This period is viewed as essential in laying the foundations for meaningful engagement and progress within the therapeutic framework.”

The Guardian does not consider a DOLs order is appropriate. In the position statement served for the hearing before me, his solicitors say:

“8.

The Guardian has read the updating second Social Work statement which suggests that Children’s Services feel that Jake’s risks cannot be managed without a Deprivation of Liberty Order. However, the Guardian notes that his licence stipulates that there is a curfew in place and that he must reside at the current placement or at an establishment that is assessed by the Youth Offending Service as part of his licence requirements. The Guardian can see that Jake is saying that he wants to have some lesser restrictions and wishes to go and see his family and friends in the Cannock area and to have his mobile phone back at some stage.

9.

The Guardian remains confused and concerned that little preparation work was completed with Jake between Children’s Services and the Youth Offending Services, and it almost feels like there’s an extra added layer of incarceration which is inappropriately used through the Deprivation of Liberty Order.

10.

A positive element of the DOLs is the fact that Jake can access therapeutic interventions in September with a therapist… who is delivering EDMR therapy. The Guardian notes that this intervention was due to take place at [the detention centre], however this did not happen. The Guardian feels that the local authority is using the [current] placement… to now try to implement therapy, when this actually should have been addressed whilst he was serving his sentence at [the detention centre], and also can be delivered through the Youth Offending Service as part of his licence conditions…

13.

Guardian’s analysis

The Guardian can see having read the last Statutory Care Plan Review dated the 4th of August, four days after he was placed [in Wrexham], that the question of when the last LAC review was in custody was raised. The Guardian does not support this DOLs remaining in place. It is evident that there was a lacking in pre-release planning which was undertaken extremely close to Jake being released. There is also evidence of poor risk management, and the Guardian feels that the YOT are using the DOLs order as way to address the work needed, which is not appropriate. The Guardian feels, with respect, that there has been somewhat of a taking the eye off the ball whilst Jake was in custody. The Guardian notes from his reading that this work should have taken place whilst Jake was incarcerated and the Guardian notes that if the DOLs is enforced it will likely not help with his engagement with his licence, or his social worker. There should have been some open transparent conversations with Jake about the DOLs and his licence expectation, which would in essence change or reduce his offending. However, the Guardian goes back to the question as to how and why the professionals are suggesting Jake is a high-risk offender. The Guardian also notes that little contextual references are made to Jake being a victim of sexual abuse himself, which then takes us back to the importance of therapeutic intervention…

14.

Jake has had no therapy, but the YOT is able to pick this up as identified. Again, the licence states that Jake must live… where he is at present, or an approved accommodation assessed by his YOT supervising officer. The Guardian questions whether anybody has asked Jake if he’d live there without a DOLs in place. The Guardian also questions why there was only a LAC Review four days after release and why this not reviewed earlier. It appears to the Guardian that agencies have not been transparent with Jake about why it was felt that a DOLs was necessary…

17.

The Guardian has reflected upon Re T (A Child) [2021] UKSC 35 [reported at [2022] AC 723] which held that the use of the inherent jurisdiction to authorise the deprivation of liberty in certain cases was permissible, but expressed grave concern about its use to fill a gap in the child care system caused by inadequate resources, with the Court being asked to ‘plug the systemic gaps’. Fundamentally, the Guardian cannot support the continuation of a DOLs being in place in respect of Jake at this juncture. There is no current evidence to suggest that he has not or will not engage in support work and therapy and he should be given that opportunity. At no point has the local authority, or attached agencies, discussed Jake being at [the Wrexham address] without a DOLs. The Guardian believes that the risks can be managed by the local authority and the Youth Offending Team under his licence conditions, which sets out clearly the boundaries for Jake. It is therefore not proportionate, on balance, for the DOLs to remain in place.”

Mr Dorian Day, who appeared for Jake on instructions from the Guardian, pointed out that there was no evidence from [the YOT supervisor], so the Court did not know what the rationale for the licence conditions was. He submitted that the DOLs order sought was an invasive order and that it was neither proportionate nor necessary to make it.

In their position statement before me, the local authority say:

“5.

Part of the Local Authority’s rationale in securing the DOLs order was due to Jake having been subject to secure restrictions for a significant period and there needing to be a phased step down plan with the ability for the DOLs Order to be implemented when needed to keep Jake safe if he places himself at risk in the community.

6.

Prior to Jake’s remand at [the detention centre], there were episodes where he went missing from placement and placed himself at risk by exposure to criminal activity. Ultimately, Jake was convicted of sexual offences against other minors.

7.

Jake has been at [his Wrexham placement] for 3 weeks now and he has settled well with no reported incidents which is extremely positive. The Local Authority considers that Jake’s transition to the community remains in its infancy and Jake and his professional network are continuing to build trust with each other.

8.

The Local Authority has carefully considered the position statement of the Children’s Guardian and his recommendations and conclusions that he does not support a DOLs order.

9.

Whilst the Local Authority acknowledges this position, the concern is that Jake’s rehabilitation into the community is currently within the transitional process. Whilst statutory agencies can work together to implement a safety plan for Jake, should Jake not engage with this, there would be no legal mechanism or authority in which to prevent Jake from absconding or placing himself at risk.

10.

The children’s Guardian has specifically raised that he believes that the Local Authority has overlooked the fact that Jake is a victim of sexual abuse. This is not accepted by the Local Authority, the Local Authority has always factored this into its planning for Jake…

14.

The Local Authority is concerned that [the conditions of Jake’s licence] will not prevent Jake from leaving the placement and placing himself at risk of harm during the day and at this stage of his rehabilitation, the Local Authority position is that there should be a phased plan with regular reviews to review whether the restrictions can be reduced or removed. There are concerns that Jake will return to the same behaviours he engaged in prior to his remand to the secure facility without the appropriate structure and scaffolding in place.

15.

The Local Authority is of the view that a phased step-down would be the appropriate plan, given the significant period by which Jake has been subject to a secure regime, to suddenly have a life of no restrictions without any transitional plan, could be setting Jake up to fail and could result in a further urgent application for a DOLs order should Jake go missing or put himself at risk. Placement staff and the Local Authority need to be able to respond to these situations with the appropriate legal authorisation.

16.

The DOLs order is permissive and should only be implemented where necessary to keep Jake safe.

17.

The Local Authority would propose a further review after 6 weeks to consider further step down and then a further review after a further 6 weeks to establish whether the order remains necessary.

18.

The Local Authority recognises the draconian nature of the order but is concerned that Jake’s care regime could become unmanageable without the DOLs authorisation. To move from a sustained period in a secure environment to an environment free of restrictions without a step down plan could be detrimental to Jake’s welfare needs and increase the risk of him exposing himself to further harm and/or criminal activity/behaviours. There needs to be confidence in the plan, with gradual testing out of Jake having free time in the community before the restrictions can be removed completely and the Local Authority would therefore seek extension of the DOLs order for a further 6 weeks.”

These concerns were emphasised by Mr Danish Ameen, who appeared for the local authority. He pointed out that under the licensing conditions there were no restrictions on what Jake could do between 7am and 9pm, which left him vulnerable. The order was sought for only six weeks, so as to permit a stepping-down of the supervision of Jake.

Section 57(2) of the Sentencing Act 2020 provides that the purpose of sentencing adult offenders is (a) the punishment of offenders, (b) the reduction of crime (including its reduction by deterrence), (c) the reform and rehabilitation of offenders, (d) the protection of the public, and (e) the making of reparation by offenders to persons affected by their offences. Instead, for children and young persons section 58 of that Act provides:

“Nothing in this Code affects the duties of the court—

(a)

to have regard to the principal aim of the youth justice system (which is to prevent offending (or re-offending) by persons aged under 18: see section 37 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998);

(b)

under section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (to have regard to welfare and in certain cases to take steps in relation to surroundings and provision of education etc).”

The Sentencing Guideline Council’s guideline Sentencing Children and Young People (in force from 1^st June 2017) provides:

“4.1

In determining the sentence, the key elements to consider are:

•

the principal aim of the youth justice system (to prevent re-offending by children and young people);

•

the welfare of the child or young person;

•

the age of the child or young person (chronological, developmental and emotional);

•

the seriousness of the offence;

•

the likelihood of further offences being committed; and

•

the extent of harm likely to result from those further offences.

4.2

The seriousness of the offence is the starting point for determining the appropriate sentence; the sentence imposed and any restriction on liberty must be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence.

4.3

The approach to sentencing children and young people should always be individualistic and the court should always have in mind the principal aims of the youth justice system.

4.4

In order to determine the seriousness of the offence the court should assess the culpability of the child or young person and the harm that was caused, intended to be caused or could foreseeably have been caused.”

The test which the High Court applies when exercising the inherent jurisdiction is that in section 1(1) of the Children Act 1989 where “the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.” There is a substantial overlap between this test and the sentencing provisions set out above, but they are not identical. For example, this Court will obviously seek to reduce the risk of the child reoffending, but this will merely be one consideration under the paramountcy test, whereas for the Youth Offenders Team this will be a predominant factor.

I was not addressed on how these differences might affect this Court’s approach to making a DOLs order, or indeed whether the statutory provisions for juvenile offenders might completely oust the High Court’s power to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. The ouster of jurisdiction might be on the basis that the criminal sentencing provisions comprise an exhaustive code for dealing with young offenders or that the Youth Offending Team (and the Secretary of State on granting or revoking an offender’s licence) have the ultimate decision-making power. On this latter view, the only remedy of the young person or his guardian would be judicial review to the King’s Bench Division rather than resort to the Family Division for the exercise of the Court’s parens patriae powers over minors.

In order to determine the current application it is not, however, necessary for me to decide these points of law. Nor (unless there were no alternative) would it be appropriate to do so when this matter was argued at an appointment in the ordinary one-hour DOLs list.

The key concern of the local authority is that under the licensing conditions Jake is free of any restraint between 7am and 9pm. Under the DOLs order, he is subject to one-to-one supervision during that period. At paragraph 9 of their position statement, the local authority say that “should Jake not engage with [the safety plan], there would be no legal mechanism or authority in which to prevent Jake from absconding or placing himself at risk.”

In my judgment, this is not correct. It is true that a DOLs order is merely permissive: it allows the local authority to do something which, in the absence of the permission given by the DOLs order, they could not do. If Jake breaches the terms of the DOLs order, he is — not even theoretically — liable to contempt of court or any other Court-imposed sanction for beach of the DOLs order. The only consequence of breach is that the local authority can use limited physical force to ensure Jake’s compliance. It is in order to avoid the need to use physical force to prevent absconding, that DOLs orders regularly include provisions for locking doors and affixing restrictors to windows.

The absence of sanction is, however, quite different in relation to a breach of the licence conditions. If Jake fails during the day-time period to be “of good behaviour [or behaves] in a way which undermines the purpose of the licence period” then the consequences are draconian: he can be brought back to [the detention centre] and incarcerated until 29^th October 2026. Likewise, if he absconds, the consequence is potentially imprisonment following the rescinding of his licence. This sanction is much more severe than putting restrictors on Jake’s bedroom windows and locking his doors.

Further, the local authority’s desire to ensure a step-down period is not at odds with what seems to be contemplated by the licence conditions. Condition (xi) provides for Jake to comply with any requirements for his addressing his sexual offending which the Youth Justice Service may impose. Conditions (xii) and (xiii) impose similar requirements in respect of education, housing and social networks.

No evidence has been adduced from [Jake’s YOT supervisor] as to the intentions of the Staffordshire Youth Justice Service’s YOT. I am therefore hampered in assessing the relative merits of the DOLs route advocated by the local authority as against what the YOT propose. The local authority has provided a well-reasoned plan for ensuring Jake’s development over the next six weeks. By contrast, all I have been able to do as regards the YOT’s proposals is to examine what would be permitted under the licence conditions. It need hardly be said, however, that the YOT will no doubt do what they consider is best for ensuring Jake’s safety and development.

What is the significance of this evidential lacuna? The Court’s powers to exercise its inherent parens patriae jurisdiction are limited by section 100 of the Children Act 1989, which, so far as material provides:

“(3)

No application for any exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction with respect to children may be made by a local authority unless the authority have obtained the leave of the court.

(4)

The court may only grant leave if it is satisfied that—

(a)

the result which the authority wish to achieve could not be achieved through the making of any order of a kind to which subsection (5) applies; and

(b)

there is reasonable cause to believe that if the court’s inherent jurisdiction is not exercised with respect to the child he is likely to suffer significant harm.

(5)

This subsection applies to any order—

(a)

made otherwise than in the exercise of the court’s inherent jurisdiction; and

(b)

which the local authority is entitled to apply for (assuming, in the case of any application which may only be made with leave, that leave is granted).”

There is in this case no order falling under section 100(5) through which the local authority’s aims can be achieved, so the condition for exercising the inherent jurisdiction in section 100(4)(a) is satisfied. However, in my judgment the local authority have failed to show reasonable cause to believe that Jake is likely to suffer significant harm in the absence of a DOLs order, so the condition in section 100(4)(b) is not satisfied. The management of Jake by the YOT is sufficient to exclude any reasonable cause for belief that Jake might suffer significant harm. The Court cannot therefore invoke the inherent jurisdiction.

I say this for three reasons. Firstly, the local authority are wrong in supposing that there will be no sanction if Jake absconds from his placement. On the contrary he has a very strong incentive not to, since, if he absconds, he is very likely to have his licence revoked. The same goes for the other terms of his licence. The local authority’s view that there is no alternative to a DOLs order is severely undermined.

Secondly, the licence conditions permit the form of “step-down” which the local authority consider is desirable. There is no reason to suppose that the YOT are not cognisant Jake’s needs in this regard. Even if the YOT took the view that more freedom should be given to Jake than the local authority’s social workers consider desirable, there are no grounds advanced to me on which any public law attack might be made in the King’s Bench Division on any decision by the YOT to that effect. There is no reason to suppose that Jake will not receive appropriate support for addressing his sexual offending.

Thirdly, in this case the primary organ of the state with responsibility for rehabilitating young offenders is Staffordshire Youth Justice Services and the YOT responsible for Jake. The social work team of the local authority has only a secondary responsibility for Jake’s rehabilitation. It is not for the High Court sitting in its parens patriae jurisdiction to micro-manage what a body such as the YOT, which operates in a specialist area of the criminal justice system for young offenders, might consider the best course for managing a particular young offender released into the community on licence. There are no grounds for supposing that the YOT is not doing what it considers to be in Jake’s best interests. Thus the absence of evidence from [the YOT supervisor] is not in my judgment fatal to Jake’s and the Guardian’s opposition to the local authority’s application.

Accordingly I refuse to extend the DOLs order.

As I indicated at the hearing, if the local authority wish to seek to appeal my refusal of the DOLs order, I would be willing to give a short extension both of the DOLs order and of the time for applying for permission to appeal so that the local authority can formulate their grounds of appeal.