Skip navigation

The Howard League online

facebook logo twitter logo YouTube logo Delicious logo


Case summaries

Alistair: child on full care order's early release refused because of lack of accommodation

Alistair, 17 years old, contacted the Howard League for Penal Reform. He told us that he had attained "gold level" for his behaviour, was making very good progress, and had been granted 2 months early release. He told us he was made the subject of a full care order but the local authority had failed to secure any accommodation for his early release. He was very concerned that he may not be released or might be placed in a hostel.

The Howard League for Penal Reform made enquiries with social services and the YOT. The local authority informed us that they could not accommodate his early release. The YOT worker was alarmed that the local authority's failure to act, particularly in light of the fact that he had been in custody for 10 months.

The Howard League for Penal Reform sent a letter threatening a judicial review. The local authority responded, arguing that Alistair had failed to cooperate and was too difficult to place.

Out of desperation, Alistair told us his grandmother might be able to help. We contacted her and confirmed she was willing to accommodate him. The local authority said that this would not be appropriate as among other concerns the home was designed for one person.

The local authority had no plans for Alistair's early release. In fact, on his eventual release, its "strategy" was to drop him off at the homelessness centre where he would be placed in crisis accommodation.

The Howard League for Penal Reform issued proceedings that went before the High Court. The court refused an injunction on the basis that it could not be ascertained that Alistair's grandmother would accept him and that it would be a suitable address.

Alistair remained in prison for Christmas and New Year, but was eventually released on his original release date.

Click here to read the press release we issued in March 2004 following a judicial review whereby the local authority was reprimanded for its failure to fulfill its obligations to Alistair.

Click here to read the judgement made by Mr Justice Munby.

Tina: bail refused because of lack of accomodation

Tina's criminal defence solicitor contacted The Howard League for Penal Reform because her client, aged 16 years, had been placed in an STC following the local authority's refusal to provide her with support and accommodation while she awaited trial.

Tina had never been in trouble with the police before, and before her arrest and charge was living in a children's home. She gave birth to a boy shortly before she was remanded. Bail was denied after the local authority concluded that, owing to the serious nature of her charge it would be unnecessary to sustain the placement she previously enjoyed and offered no alternative accommodation to the court. It stated on numerous occasions that the STC was the most appropriate place for her, and it was unnecessary to explore alternative options.

Tina's incarceration not only robbed her of her liberty. It also denied her vital bonding time with her baby. She was vulnerable, upset and very scared, but still no accommodation was made available.  The Howard League wrote to the local authority on Tina's behalf to remind them of their duties under the Children Act 1989 and that the decision whether to grant bail was not for them to determine. The local authority responded by maintaining that, since she was charged with a serious offence, custody was the best place for her. Following our application for judicial review, the local authority agreed to provide appropriate accommodation and support and Tina's application for bail was successful.

She is currently living in a children's home, where, although nervous about her trial, she is happy and settled, and sees her baby regularly.

Simon: appropriate support denied

Simons mother had been in contact with the Howard League for Penal reforms legal team many times for advice and support, concerned about appropriate accommodation for her son. However, we could not represent Simon until he himself contacted us via our freephone helpline from his YOI, worried that he had nowhere to live on his release from prison. Simon had already been placed on an anti-social behaviour order, which prohibited him from residing in the family home. He was also worried that the Youth Offending Team hadn't arranged any accommodation for him for his release.

The Howard League for Penal Reforms legal team was told by Simons YOT worker that the local authority deemed Simon too difficult to place, and that as he was 17, the local authority had no obligation to find him accommodation. 

The Howard League for Penal Reforms legal team contacted the local authority, asking that he was recognised as a "child in need" under the Children Act, that his needs were properly assessed, and that it organised appropriate accommodation for him.

When no response arrived, the Howard League for Penal Reform issued proceedings in the High Court against the YOT and the county council for failing to comply with the Children Act obligations to recognise Simon as a child in need, and with the Youth Justice Board's national standards which dictate that from the first day of a child's sentence, the appropriate sentence plan must be implemented.

As a result of this action, Simon was found accommodation and supported by 2 key workers. He also enrolled on a course at a local college.

To read the press release we issued about Simon's case, click here.