Jersey Unreported Judgments

Secure accommodation order - application by the Minister and granting of same by the Court.

[2013]JRC042

Royal Court

(Samedi)

22 February 2013

Before     :

Sir Michael Birt, Kt., Bailiff, and Jurats Marett-Crosby and Blampied.

IN THE MATTER OF A (SECURE ACCOMMODATION ORDER)

AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN (JERSEY) LAW 2002.

Advocate D. C. Robinson appeared for the Minister.

Advocate H. J. Heath appeared for A (the child).

Advocate L. V. Marks appeared for B (the mother).

judgment

the bailiff:

1.        This is an application by the Minister for a secure accommodation order in respect of A, who is 14 years of age.  The background appears in two previous judgments of this Court dated 15^th November, 2011, and 16^th March, 2012.  A has been known to the Children's Service since May 2011; she lived with her mother until October of that year, when she was admitted into the care of C Children's Home, by agreement with her mother.  On 15^th November, 2011, A was made the subject of a secure accommodation order for 3 months.  She was 12 at the time; this was because she had a history of absconding.  According to the report she did well and in fact a decision was taken, after Christmas, for her to return to the full time care of her mother.  Unfortunately A then began absconding again both from her home, initially, and then from D Children's Home, to which she had moved.  The Court made a further secure accommodation order on 16^th March, 2012, for 3 months.  Again progress appeared to be good and she returned to the care of her mother on 16^th June, 2012, and, for a while, matters seemed to improve but they deteriorated again.  On 18^th December, 2012, she appeared in the Youth Court on charges of grave and criminal assault and malicious damage and she was bailed to live with her mother.  Subsequently she was charged with a further count of malicious damage on 31^st December, and on this occasion she was bailed to reside at D Children's Home and that is where she remains.  On 23^rd January this Court made an interim care order in favour of the Minister.  However, since she has been at D Children's Home, and in the recent past, she has begun to abscond again. 

2.        We summarise the evidence in Miss Wilson's report as follows:-

(i)        On 19^th February A left D Children's Home without permission; she was found about midnight at an address where a party was being held; she was extremely intoxicated and aggressive towards the police; she was handcuffed and returned to D Children's Home, where she was verbally abusive to staff. 

(ii)       Two days later, on 11^th February, she left D Children's Home without permission.  She returned briefly at 10:40pm but then left again and stayed out till 3:45am; she would not say where she had been. 

(iii)      On 13^th February she was warned by the Children's Service that they might well have to apply for a secure accommodation order if she continued to behave in that way.  Unfortunately she did not take note of that warning because on 14^th February, the next day, she absconded at 11:50pm and stayed out until 2:24am and when she returned she was slightly intoxicated. 

(iv)      On 15^th February she was reported missing from D Children's Home at 6pm; police returned her at 12:50am.  She was highly intoxicated, falling up the stairs to her bedroom and being verbally abusive to staff. 

(v)       Finally, on 16^th February she went missing at 6:50pm; she was located in town at 2:30am by staff; she was highly intoxicated and was abusive to the staff who found her and she refused to return to D Children's Home.  She eventually returned at 9:30 the next morning, but refused to say where she had been. 

That is the background to the Minister's application. 

3.        The criteria for the Court to make an order are set out in Article 22(1) of the Children (Jersey) Law 2002.  A secure accommodation order may only be made if:-

"(i) the child has a history of absconding and is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation, and

(ii) if the child absconds, he or she is likely to suffer significant harm..."

Article 22(3) provides that if the Court is satisfied that those criteria are met it must make a secure accommodation order, although it has a discretion as to the period. 

4.        The Court is quite satisfied on two of the three elements that it must be satisfied of.  It is quite satisfied that there has been a history of absconding, as we have just described.  It is also satisfied that if A does abscond, she is likely to suffer significant harm.  She is 14; she has been out at night; she has been highly intoxicated on several occasions; she has been arrested for offences and there is a substantial risk of her suffering sexual harm.  Thus, according to Miss Wilson's report, A has made an allegation previously of attempted rape, she spent the night with older males on several occasions; she has made an allegation of sexual assault by more than one male and she has admitted to being sexually active.  She clearly is at risk of injury when she is intoxicated and also at risk of committing further criminal offences, particularly if she is in the presence of older men known to the police, as is apparently the case. 

5.        That leaves the issue of whether A is likely to abscond.  This is the matter which we have considered very carefully because we have listened with great attention to what A and her advocate have said to us.  When we read the papers initially there seemed ample evidence that A was likely to abscond, but she has written to us and we have read her letter.  She also came to see us in chambers with her advocate, and we appreciate that must have taken a lot of courage on A's part to do that.  We have listened very carefully to what she said and we have read her letter very carefully.  What she says is that following a long conversation with her mother last Sunday, she realises that she is putting herself at risk by her conduct and she really wants to change.  She tells us she has applied for a hair and beauty course and is looking to the future.  She reminds us that she has not absconded since last Sunday and she assures us that she would not do so in the future if we were able to leave her at D Children's Home, which is where she wishes to stay for the moment, with the hope that in due course she can return to live with her mother; and that, of course, is quite naturally also her mother's wish. 

6.        As we say, we have considered this aspect very carefully, and, as you will have gathered, we have been discussing it for some time.  We do not doubt the genuineness of what A tells us in the sense that she genuinely believes what she is telling us.  We hope very much that she is indeed willing to change, but we fear that it will not prove possible for her to resist the temptation which will undoubtedly be placed in her way if she remains at D Children's Home.  We think that A needs help in order to encourage this new determination on her part to change the course of conduct she has been on so far.  We think that that help can be given in the security of Greenfields. 

7.        Accordingly we find that, despite her genuine intention, she is still likely to abscond if she remains at D Children's Home.  It follows that we are satisfied that all the criteria are met and we therefore have no choice but to make an order.  But what we want to explain, A, is that if you mean what you say to us, there is no reason why you should not take the help that will be offered to you in Greenfields so that when you go back to live at D Children's Home you are in a much stronger position to resist temptation and really in a much better position not to abscond in future.  We urge you to take advantage so that this builds on the real change of mind which you tell us you have had.  As we say, if you mean what you tell us, and we think you do, then we hope that the period in Greenfields will help rather than hinder this change of mind. 

8.        We also urge the Children's Service to concentrate on taking advantage of the time in Greenfields.  We are sure that that is what they intend to do but we do urge them to do so.  It is not enough just to keep A safe and secure for 3 months because she is in a secure accommodation; it is important to do the necessary work and to build on what she says is a real intention to change, so that if that is indeed genuine, she will be in a much stronger position when she comes out. 

9.        The order we make is for 3 months but that does not mean that A has to stay in Greenfields for 3 months, it only means up to 3 months.  We hope very much, A, that if all goes well, it will be possible for you to go back to D Children's Home earlier than that, but that will be up to you as to how well you do in Greenfields.  We also urge that consideration be given to A going back to school as soon as it is possible, consistent with her safety, because, again, A has told us of her desire to pursue her education and we think that is terribly important; so the least time she is out of mainstream education the better. 

10.      We do make the secure accommodation order for 3 months. 

Authorities

Children (Jersey) Law 2002.