Spotlight
Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'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...
Spotlight
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles
Authors

Deprivation of liberty in intensive care – the Court of Appeal decides

Sep 29, 2018, 19:40 PM
family law, deprivation of liberty, life-saving medical treatment, Cheshire West
The Court of Appeal has held that there will, in general, be no deprivation of liberty in the context of the delivery of life-saving medical treatment.
Slug : deprivation-of-liberty-in-intensive-care-the-court-of-appeal-decides
Meta Title : Deprivation of liberty in intensive care – the Court of Appeal decides
Meta Keywords : family law, deprivation of liberty, life-saving medical treatment, Cheshire West
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jan 26, 2017, 10:06 AM
Article ID : 113662

The Court of Appeal has this morning (26 January) handed down judgment in R (Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 31.   We will have full analysis of the judgment in the next newsletter due out next week, but in the interim the headline is that the Court of Appeal has held that there will, in general, be no deprivation of liberty in the context of the delivery of life-saving medical treatment. This is because – Arden LJ explained (giving the sole reasoned judgment of the court:

'any deprivation of liberty resulting from the administration of life-saving treatment to a person falls outside Article 5(1) (as it was said in Austin) “so long as [it is] rendered unavoidable as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the authorities and is necessary to avert a real risk of serious injury or damage, and [is] kept to the minimum required for that purpose”. In my judgment, what these qualifications mean is in essence that the acute condition of the patient must not have been the result of action which the state wrongly chose to inflict on him and that the administration of the treatment cannot in general include treatment that could not properly be given to a person of sound mind in her condition according to the medical evidence.(para [89])

Arden LJ held that there may be circumstances where a deprivation of liberty may arise and for which authorisation will be required, giving an example of the case of NHS Trust I v G [2015] 1 WLR 1984, where a hospital considered that it might have to give obstetric care to a pregnant woman of unsound mind who objected to such treatment. Keehan J made an order authorising a deprivation of liberty and invasive medical treatment on a precautionary basis.  As Arden LJ noted:

'[t]he pregnant woman in question was to be prevented from leaving the delivery suite and might be compelled to submit to invasive treatment, such as a Caesarean section.  If these steps had to be taken, the treatment would be materially different from that given to a person of sound mind.  By contrast, I do not consider that authorisation would be required because some immaterial difference in treatment is necessitated by the fact that the patient is of unsound mind or because the patient has some physical abnormality.'

The Court of Appeal distinguished Cheshire West (para [91]) on the basis that it was directed to the different situation of the living arrangements of those with unsound mind, and that it contained no guidance as to the position with regard to Art 5 ECHR in the urgent or intensive care context. Arden LJ emphasised that Art 5(1)(e) is directed to the treatment of persons of unsound mind because of their mental impairment (para [95]), such that it does not apply where a person of unsound mind is receiving materially the same medical treatment as a person of sound mind – that, Arden LJ held, is a matter for Art 8 ECHR.

Arden LJ held that, even if the acid test did fall to be applied, it could not be said that either Maria Ferreira or the majority of patients in ICU were not free to leave, the true cause of their lack of freedom to leave not being a consequence of state action but their underlying illness, a matter for which (absent special circumstances) the state is not responsible (para [99]). This was to be contrasted with the position of those in Cheshire West – 'a long way from this case' – where steps to be taken to prevent a person leaving their placement are taken because of their mental disorder.

The appellant, Maria Ferreira’s sister, is seeking permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.


This article was originally published on the Mental Capacity Law and Policy website and has been reproduced here with kind permission.
Categories :
  • Articles
Tags :
fog_light
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Load more comments
Comment by from