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.
Streamlining: judicial authorisation of deprivation of liberty (£)
© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All rights reserved.
When the Supreme Court handed down its judgment in
P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another; P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19
[2014] COPLR 313 it was generally considered that the decision firstly extended Art 5 provisions cardinal to protecting rights of liberty and security to those who lack capacity receiving care and support from the state and secondly widened the interpretation of what a deprivation of liberty means. The effect has been to increase enormously the numbers of people lacking capacity (P) who require their arrangements to be authorised where they amount to a deprivation of liberty. Consequently concerns were raised on the practical and procedural implications for the Court of Protection of the increase in the applications to an already overloaded Court.
It is too early to predict precise numbers but the range of services requiring authorisation now includes domicilary care at one end of the scale to high level...
Read the full article here.
