High Court refuses DoLS extension for young sexual offender on licence

The High Court has delivered a significant judgement concerning the application of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to young offenders transitioning from custody to community supervision. In Staffordshire County Council v Jake [2025], Mr Recorder Adrian Jack refused to extend DoLS provisions for a 16-year-old convicted of serious sexual offences, emphasising rehabilitation over restrictive measures.

Case background

Jake was convicted of multiple serious sexual offences on 24 July 2024 and sentenced to two and a half years' detention. Following his release on licence on 30 July 2025, he remained subject to strict conditions including curfews and Youth Offending Team (YOT) supervision. Staffordshire County Council subsequently applied for DoLS authorisation, citing concerns about reintegration risks and potential reoffending behaviour.

The local authority's application centred on Jake's history of substance misuse and criminal associations, arguing that enhanced supervision and movement restrictions were necessary to prevent absconding or further offences. Counsel emphasised the structured monitoring approach required to manage community safety risks effectively.

Opposition arguments

Jake's legal representatives, supported by his Guardian, contended that existing licence conditions provided sufficient safeguards without requiring formal liberty deprivation. They highlighted the absence of physical restraint under current arrangements and raised concerns about additional stigmatisation following Jake's custodial experience.

The defence emphasised Jake's traumatic background and argued for therapeutic intervention rather than punitive measures, warning that further restrictions could impede successful rehabilitation and community reintegration.

Judgement analysis

Mr Recorder Adrian Jack initially reserved judgement whilst granting temporary DoLS extension. His subsequent ruling examined the complex legal framework governing DoLS applications under the Children Act 1989 and youth offender legislation, reaffirming that child welfare remains paramount in such determinations.

The judgement established specific criteria required for justified liberty deprivation, noting that local authorities must demonstrate significant harm would result without protective measures. Critically, the court found insufficient evidence that Jake would suffer such harm absent the DoLS order.

Key findings

The High Court identified procedural deficiencies in the application, particularly the failure to obtain the YOT's formal position on Jake's reintegration planning. Given the YOT's primary rehabilitation responsibility, their absence from formal proceedings represented a significant oversight affecting the court's assessment.

The judgement emphasised that management approaches should facilitate rather than hinder reintegration processes. Mr Recorder Adrian Jack recommended supportive measures respecting Jake's dignity whilst maintaining appropriate risk management safeguards, rejecting automatic imposition of restrictive conditions.

Implications for practice

This decision highlights the courts' increasingly nuanced approach to managing young offenders with complex needs stemming from trauma and behavioural risk factors. The judgement demonstrates judicial reluctance to impose additional restrictions without clear necessity and proper procedural compliance.

The ruling reinforces the principle that rehabilitation considerations must balance public protection with individual rights and welfare. It establishes important precedent regarding the evidential threshold required for DoLS applications involving young offenders transitioning from custody to community supervision.

The case underscores the critical importance of multi-agency cooperation in youth justice proceedings, particularly ensuring all relevant statutory bodies contribute to judicial decision-making processes affecting vulnerable young people's liberty and rehabilitation prospects.