The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court special care order for a teenager identified as G., finding that her behaviour posed a real and substantial risk to her own life, safety, development and welfare.
In a judgment delivered on 12 April 2019, Ms Justice Máire Whelan rejected G.’s appeal against the order made on 7 December 2018. The appeal challenged whether the evidence met the statutory threshold, whether detention was justified in light of G.’s right to liberty, and whether the High Court had properly considered her views and a clinical letter from Professor Harry Kennedy.
The Child and Family Agency had sought the order as G.’s detention at Oberstown was due to end on 7 November 2018. Reports before the High Court recorded daily suicidal thoughts, a reported plan to die after release, and an assessment of moderate to high suicide risk. G. said her threats were instrumental and linked to her wish to be recognised as female and pursue gender reassignment. The appeal court acknowledged Kennedy’s view that the threats were instrumental, but noted that his letter also warned against dismissing self-harm claims and said a secure care placement was appropriate.
The judgment also recounted G.’s history of violence, including a serious assault on a care worker in May 2018. The court said that violent behaviour towards others could also pose a substantial risk to a young person’s own development and welfare, and could be addressed as part of therapeutic care under the legislation.
G. opposed special care and had conveyed her views in letters, through legal representation and by video link at the High Court. The High Court had also considered the contrary view of Oberstown’s director, who did not consider special care warranted. The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had weighed those views against the professional evidence and was entitled to give the director’s view less weight.
The appeal court concluded that the order served a therapeutic and welfare purpose rather than preventive detention. It stressed that special care restricts liberty and must be necessary, proportionate and temporary, with regular judicial review. The order was upheld; the court found that G. had not shown the High Court was wrong to conclude that the statutory requirements were satisfied.