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
The suspension, during lockdown, of prison visits for children: was it lawful?
Jake Richards, 9 Gough ChambersThis article argues that the suspension on prison visits during this period and the deficiency of measures to mitigate the impact of this on family life and to protect...
Re R (Children) (Control of Court Documents) [2021] EWCA Civ 162
(Court of Appeal (Civil Division), King, Peter Jackson, Elisabeth Laing LJJ, 12 February 2021)Practice and Procedure – Disclosure of court documents – Sexual abuse findings –...
AG v VD [2021] EWFC 9
(Family Court, Cohen J, 04 February 2021) Financial Remedies – Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984, Part III – Russian divorceThe wife was awarded just under £6m...
Become the new General Editor of The Family Court Practice, the definitive word on family law and procedure
The Family Court Practice (‘The Red Book’) is widely acknowledged as the leading court reference work for all family practitioners and the judiciary. We are currently recruiting a...
SCTS releases new simplified divorce and dissolution forms for Scotland
The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service (SCTS) has released new simplified divorce and dissolution forms of application. As a result of legislation repealing Council Regulation EC 2201/2003, the...
View all articles
Authors

VULNERABLE ADULT/CHILD WELFARE: Re A and B (Equality and Human Rights Commission Intervening) [2010] EWHC 978 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:28 PM
Slug : vulnerable-adult-child-welfare-re-a-and-b-equality-and-human-rights-commission-intervening-2010-ewhc-978-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 29, 2010, 11:50 AM
Article ID : 91127

(Family Division; Munby LJ sitting as a judge of the Family Division; 4 May 2010)

In the two separate cases, a child and an adult both suffered from a rare syndrome resulting in them lacking capacity. They were cared for at home by their families and were locked into their rooms at night, although nobody suggested that they would be better cared for in any other environment. The issue was whether the care at home involved deprivation of liberty.  

Held that the child and the adult were not deprived of their liberty, instead their liberty was restricted. To engage Art 5, deprivation of liberty must be imputable to the State. Notwithstanding local authority's duties, it was not sufficiently directly involved to engage the State's responsibility.  In any event, while the subjective element of deprivation of liberty was satisfied, the objective element was not. A domestic setting could involve deprivation of liberty, but typically not. Re MIG and MEG [2010] EWHC 785 (Fam) approved. Declaration made that there was no deprivation of liberty.

__________________________________________________________________

Family Law Reports

Family Law Reports are relied upon by the judiciary, barristers and solicitors and the reports are cited daily in court and in judgments.

They contain verbatim case reports of every important Family Division, Court of Appeal, House of Lords and European courts case, and also includes practice directions, covering the whole range of family law, public and private child law.

 

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Authors
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from