Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
New Cafcass guidance on working with children during COVID-19
The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) has published guidance on working with children during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The guidance sets out arrangements for...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
Online event: An update on recovery in the civil, family courts & tribunals
HM Courts and Tribunals Service has announced that it is holding an online event to discuss its recovery plan for the civil, family courts and tribunals, which was published on 9 November 2020...
HM Courts & Tribunals Service confirms 2020 Christmas and new year closure dates
HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) has confirmed the dates over the Christmas and new year period in which Crown Courts, magistrates’ courts,...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
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