Call us on
0370 1500 100
Mathieu Culverhouse of Irwin Mitchell’s Public Law & Human Rights department acted for the mother of a disabled man whose case was the subject of a landmark judgment by the Supreme Court. The judgment, in what has become known as the ‘Cheshire West case’, will affect thousands of disabled people, who will now have the benefit of regular independent reviews of their situation.
'Deprivation Of Liberty'
The 39-year-old man, known as ‘P’ for legal reasons, was the subject of a long running legal argument over the definition of the term ‘deprivation of liberty’ and the circumstances in which safeguards must be put in place to protect vulnerable adults.
His local council, Cheshire West and Chester Council, had removed him from his mother’s home and placed him into the care of social services. However, Irwin Mitchell acted for P’s mother in successfully arguing that the law requires safeguards to be put in place for people in P’s position so that their protective care regime is regularly reviewed.
Social Care Implications
P has been diagnosed with a number of conditions, including cerebral palsy and Down’s syndrome and as a result, he lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about his own welfare.
In its judgment, the Supreme Court ruled that P was “under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave” and was therefore deprived of his liberty.
The case has significant implications in the field of health and social care, as it now means that anyone meeting this definition will be deemed to be deprived of their liberty and will benefit from regular independent reviews to ensure that it is the most appropriate system of care for that individual. This is likely to affect thousands of people across the country who do not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, including many elderly dementia patients and other disabled adults.
Judgment From The Supreme Court
This judgment was much anticipated by those working in the field of health and social care, many of whom felt that the previous law in this field was confusing and led to fewer people being given the protection of regular independent reviews.
These reviews will come via an existing system called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, or via an order from the Court of Protection itself.
Commenting on the Supreme Court's judgment, Mathieu Culverhouse said:
“This judgment provides much needed clarity on the issue of deprivation of liberty.
“The Supreme Court has provided a simple test to decide if the individual is deprived of their liberty which will be far easier to apply than the previous test and which will afford far greater protection to vulnerable people.
“P’s mother welcomes this ruling, as it now gives her the peace of mind that her son’s placement will be reviewed regularly to ensure that the restrictions placed on him are appropriate and in his best interests.
“This case now sets a precedent that anyone who meets the new legal test will be considered to be deprived of their liberty and subject to a protective care regime. People in P’s situation who lack the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, whether as a result of dementia, learning disabilities, brain injury or mental health problems, should have the benefit of regular independent reviews to ensure that their placement and any restrictions on their movement are still in their best interests.”
The case started in the Court of Protection social services became concerned about P living at home with his mother. Although P’s mother eventually agreed that he should move into the care of the local Council, a dispute arose as to whether this placement amounted to a deprivation of liberty and whether this therefore needed to be authorised by the Court.
In the original court proceedings the judge, Mr Justice Baker, ruled that P was deprived of his liberty and that he should therefore be the subject of regular reviews by the Court. However, the local authority, Cheshire West and Chester Council, appealed this decision.
The Court of Appeal then ruled that P was not deprived of his liberty and that it was necessary to take into account the reason why P had been placed where he was and to compare the ‘normality’ of his situation with that of any other person with the same disabilities.
The Official Solicitor, acting for P, appealed this decision to the Supreme Court, with the support of P’s mother, who instructed Irwin Mitchell. Together, they argued that the reasons why P was placed where he was, and the ‘normality’ of the placement were not relevant, but that the key factor was that in all practical terms P was not free to leave his placement and this therefore meant that he was deprived of his liberty.
The Supreme Court’s full judgment can be read here
You can watch a video of the Supreme Court's judgement here
For expert advice on matters relating to deprivation of liberty and mental capacity law, please contact Mathieu Culverhouse of Irwin Mitchell's Public Law & Human Rights team on 0370 1500 100.
Back to Client Stories
Simply complete the form below and one of our experts will get back to you.
This data will only be used by Irwin Mitchell for processing your query and for no other purpose.
Contact us today
For a free initial consultation
Use our form
Request A Call Back
Enter your details below and we'll call you back, at a time of your choice.