For people not familiar with some of the terminology:

She's currently being held in a young offenders institution. Some people are calling that a secure unit. If you read the judgement[1] you'll see reference to "low secure" or "medium secure" units. These are a different type of unit. These are hospitals, and the people in them are patients, not criminals.

The judgement is amazing. Sir James Munby continues to be impressive.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgments/in-the-matter-of-x-a-...

> The lack of proper provision for X – and, one fears, too many like her – is an outrage.

[...]

> What this case demonstrates, as if further demonstration is still required of what is a well-known scandal, is the disgraceful and utterly shaming lack of proper provision in this country of the clinical, residential and other support services so desperately needed by the increasing numbers of children and young people afflicted with the same kind of difficulties as X is burdened with. We are, even in these times of austerity, one of the richest countries in the world. Our children and young people are our future. X is part of our future. It is a disgrace to any country with pretensions to civilisation, compassion and, dare one say it, basic human decency, that a judge in 2017 should be faced with the problems thrown up by this case and should have to express himself in such terms.

> X is, amongst all her woes, a young person convicted in the Youth Court and a prisoner of the State. As long ago as 1910, a Home Secretary, speaking in the House of Commons, asserted that “The mood and temper of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country.” In modern times the principle has expanded, so that, as is often said, “One of the measures of a civilised society is how well it looks after the most vulnerable members of its society.” If this is the best we can do for X, and others in similar crisis, what right do we, what right do the system, our society and indeed the State itself, have to call ourselves civilised? The honest answer to this question should make us all feel ashamed. For my own part, acutely conscious of my powerlessness – of my inability to do more for X – I feel shame and embarrassment; shame, as a human being, as a citizen and as an agent of the State, embarrassment as President of the Family Division, and, as such, Head of Family Justice, that I can do no more for X.

> If, when in eleven days’ time she is released from ZX, we, the system, society, the State, are unable to provide X with the supportive and safe placement she so desperately needs, and if, in consequence, she is enabled to make another attempt on her life, then I can only say, with bleak emphasis: we will have blood on our hands

the observation levels are striking. Imagine living like this:

> 1. Observation Levels

> • 2:1 observation at all times.

this means 2 members of staff observing child X at all times (although if she's asleep and the door is closed that drops to 1:1)

> • 8 staff should be available at all times to aid in restraints. 6 staff are required to restrain [X] at a given time and 2 staff should remain available to support, swap with others and make relevant phone calls.

> • [X] must be within staff eye sight at all times.

This includes bathing and toileting.

> • Both staff must remain within arm’s length of [X].

This includes bathing and toileting.