The High Court in Northern Ireland has ruled that a 13-year-old boy in care, LR, is not deprived of his liberty by the restrictions imposed in his residential placement, despite being under close supervision and having limited kitchen access.

The boy, who has autism and a learning disability, lives in a two-bedroom property managed by the Health and Social Care Trust. The Trust had sought declarations under the inherent jurisdiction of the court, arguing it should be allowed to lawfully supervise him closely, prevent access to the kitchen, and use physical restraint as a last resort.

Mr Justice Humphreys said the restrictions were relatively modest and for the boy’s own wellbeing, not punitive. Physical restraint had only been used once in 2026. The boy attends school and a youth club and appears generally content. The judge found the measures restricted his liberty but did not amount to deprivation under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ruling applied principles set by the UK Supreme Court in a 2026 reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, which overturned the previous 'acid test' from the Cheshire West case. That test had said continuous supervision and control plus lack of freedom to leave meant deprivation of liberty.

The new approach requires a case-specific, multifactorial assessment of the type, duration, manner and effect of restrictions, considering factors such as the child's own experience, contentment and objections. The judge did not need to determine whether the boy validly consented because the objective component of confinement was not met.

The court also noted that children who are not deprived of liberty still have protections under other Convention rights, including Articles 2, 3 and 8, as well as the looked-after child review process. However, the judge expressed concern that those protections may be less robust than periodic independent judicial oversight.

The interim order made in June 2026 was discharged and the Trust's application for declaratory relief was dismissed. The judge stressed that the factual conclusion in this case should not be treated as establishing a precedent that similar restrictions will always fall outside Article 5.