Judge agrees to withdrawal of deprivation of liberty order for 15 year old despite opposition of guardian

Mr Recorder Adrian Jack, sitting as a High Court judge, was told the boy, anonymised as ‘Mustafa’ will soon be aged 16.

Brent sought to withdraw an application for an extension of a DOL safeguarding order originally made in June 2025 and subsequently extended.

Mr Jack said: “Unusually the guardian opposes the withdrawal of the application for a DOL order on the basis that the frequency with which physical restraint is used on Mustafa is inconsistent with his rights under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights and so should be kept in place.”

He heard that Mustafa has Prader Willi syndrome with developmental delay and additional learning needs.

Mustafa had lived full-time at a specialist residential school since 2021 and the DOL specifies various restriction to keep him safe including that all doors leading to the main road are kept locked, 1:1 care support is given at all times and kitchen and sharp tools kept out of reach and used only under supervision.

Brent submitted Mustafa was aware of and accepted the restrictions needed to keep him safe, and ”that considering Mustafa's concrete situation as a whole, and applying the multifactorial test mandated by [AGNI], Mustafa is not deprived of his liberty”.

The guardian argued the frequency of restraint represented a regular pattern of the use of physical intervention to manage Mustafa's behaviour of approximately every 9-10 days.

This, combined with the increase in the duration and intensity of the incidents, may make renewal of the DOL order necessary to keep Mustafa safe, the guardian said.

Mr Jack said: “When I stand back [and] look at all the factors relevant to the assessment as to whether there is a deprivation of liberty, in my judgment there is no deprivation of liberty.

“Mustafa is, as the guardian sets out at length, generally happy in his placement. Where the school uses physical restraint, it either has Mustafa's consent or it is entitled to use restraint under its common law powers.

“Either way, there is no deprivation of liberty such as to give rise to a violation of Article 5(1). An extension of the DOLs order is therefore neither necessary nor proportionate and I refuse to grant one.”

Mark Smulian