Family lawChildren - secure accommodation order - whether there was deprivation of liberty - whether incompatible with human rights legislationIn re K (A Child) (Secure Accommodation Order: Right to Liberty): CA: (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, P, Thorpe and Judge LJJ): 15 November 2000K, who was 15, was the subject of an interim care order.

He had complex social and educational needs and mental health problems, and had been placed in secure accommodation in December 1998.

His placement was supported by both parents and the guardian ad litem and, although he had made progress in both formal education and in behaviour since then, the adolescent forensic psychiatrist's report considered that he continued to represent a risk to others and to himself and fulfilled the criteria for detention under s.25 of the Children Act 1989.

He appealed against the order and sought a determination and declaration that s.25 was incompatible with art.5 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

There was an order that nothing should be reported which might lead to the identification of the parties.Margaret de Haas QC and Simon Crabtree for K; Ernest Ryder QC and Clare Grundy for the local authority; Neil Garnham for the Secretary of State for Health intervening; Philip Sales and Neil Garnham for the Lord Chancellor intervening.Held, dismissing the appeal, that although a secure accommodation order made under s.25 of the Children Act 1989 was a deprivation of liberty there was no incompatibility with art.5 of the Convention, since the justification for such deprivation came within art.5 (1)(d) as being detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision.