Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
His Honour Judge Hayes KC Sitting as a Section 9 Deputy High Court Judge ____________________
Representation: For the Applicant: Alex Taylor, Counsel For the 1st Respondent: James Yearsley, Counsel For the 2nd Respondent: Chloe Lee, Counsel For the 3rd Respondent: Jane Aldred, Solicitor. Heard on 20-23 September 2022 ____________________
(i) I am asked to consider whether the care arrangements are rendered lawful through RN's parents having consented to the same; or
(ii) Alternatively, if I were to determine parental consent cannot, as a matter of law, render the care arrangements lawful, then I am invited to authorise those arrangements through declarations under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court.
However, the Supreme Court explicitly confined its decision to the position in relation to 16 and 17 year olds. At paragraph [3] Lady Hale stated, "The principal issue can be simply stated: Is it within the scope of parental responsibility to consent to living arrangements for a 16 or 17-year-old child which would otherwise amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Art 5?" However, she added that, "�similar issues would arise in a case concerning a child under 16".
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.