Latest articles
UK Immigration Rough Sleeper Rule
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsThe UK government has recently introduced a controversial new set of rules that aim to make rough sleeping grounds for refusal or cancellation of a migrant’s...
Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust v DV (A Child) [2021] EWHC 1037 (Fam)
(Family Division, Cohen J, 19 April 2021)Medical Treatment – 17-year-old had form of bone cancer and required surgery For comprehensive, judicially approved coverage of every important...
Domestic Abuse Bill
Aaron Gates-Lincoln, Immigration NewsAfter years of development the Domestic Abuse Bill returned to the House of Lords in the UK on the 8th March 2021 to complete its report stage, one of the final...
Coercive control and children’s welfare in Re H-N and Others
When families come to strife, arrangements must be made for the future care of any children. In some circumstances, this means an application to the courts. These ‘private law orders’ can...
Profession: Expert Witness
The value of a family business or business interest is treated as an asset and therefore part of the matrimonial pot to be distributed when it comes to negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or...
View all articles

DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY: Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2011] EWCA Civ 1257, [2012] COPLR 37

Sep 29, 2018, 21:31 PM
Slug : 2011ewcaciv1257
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : May 23, 2012, 02:40 AM
Article ID : 98855

(Court of Appeal, Pill, Lloyd, Munby LJJ, 9 November 2011)

The 39-year-old man had substantial physical and learning difficulties. He lived in a community placement bungalow with other disabled people and received close one-to-one supervision during the daytime but was able to have regular access to the community with his carers. He displayed difficult and challenging behaviour including putting objects in his mouth which required support staff to employ various distraction techniques and when required use a ‘finger sweep' to ensure articles were removed from his mouth. At first instance Baker J found that the man had been deprived of his liberty because he could not go anywhere or do anything without the support staff, was at times subject to physical restraint and the use of the finger sweep. The local authority appealed.

Allowing the appeal substituting a declaration that the man was not deprived of his liberty. The assessment of whether a person was deprived of his liberty required consideration of a number of factors and the context of the person's situation. The judge should have compared what the man's situation would have been in a family setting. The restrictions imposed were no more than the inevitable corollary of his various disabilities.

Categories :
  • Court of Protection
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from