Our articles are written by experts in their field and include barristers, solicitors, judges, mediators, academics and professionals from a range of related disciplines. Family Law provides a platform for debate for all the important topics, from divorce
and care proceedings to transparency and access to justice. If you would like to contribute please email
emma.reitano@lexisnexis.co.uk.
Supplement to Urgent Applications in the Court of Protection
© Copyright LexisNexis 2024. All rights reserved.
Has the Supreme Court strengthened human rights for those lacking capacity? Deprivation of liberty after the UKSC’s decision in Cheshire West and
The deprivation of liberty safeguards (DOLS) introduced into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were intended to protect the human rights of those placed in residential care by the state but who could not consent to those arrangements through lack of capacity. However no definition of what amounts to a deprivation of liberty was included and this led to uncertainty.
The Supreme Court’s decision in
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19 [2014] COPLR (forthcoming) has brought some clarity to the legal concept of deprivation of liberty. This article provides a brief analysis of the judgments (including the dissenting judgments). It sets out the guidance given by the court on:
- The application of Art 5 of the European Convention to those lacking capacity.
- The test now to be applied when determining deprivation of liberty.
- The factors that are not relevant.
- The need for and nature of periodic reviews.
- Some of the implications and uncertainties which are...
Read the full article here.
