RSS Feed

Tag Archives: deprivation of liberty

Legal aid, Court of Protection and ‘contrivance’

 

This is a Court of Protection case, and it is a Charles J judgment, which means that although it is important, it is complicated and challenging. If you aren’t working in the COP field, you can probably skip most of it and just go to the bits where Charles J is erm direct in his views about the Legal Aid Agency and the Secretary of State, who were both joined as parties.  That’s towards the bottom – and it is good stuff so worth a read purely for schadenfreude about those two massively popular bodies being taken down a peg or two.

The case involved a man who as a result of a road traffic accident in July 2015 had been unconscious since that time, and whether he should continue to have Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH)

Clearly the man lacked capacity, so an argument about this would have to be dealt with under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and in the Court of Protection. There’s absolutely and undoubtedly a valid argument to be had about whether the continuation of this treatment is in his best interests or not.

The case isn’t really about THAT argument, it is about a preliminary argument.

Is the application before the Court for :-

 

(a) section 5 and section 16 of the MCA  which allows the Court to consider all of the welfare issues set out in the MCA and make a best interests declaration ;

 

or

(b)  A challenge under s21A of the MCA – which relates to the Court’s powers to consider any aspect of P’s life or plans or arrangements for P if his liberty is being deprived.  I.e is it a DOLS case?

 

That seems to be sterile and academic, but actually it isn’t.  Because answer (b) can potentially attract non-means legal aid and answer (a) cannot.  So if the Legal Aid Agency granted legal aid on the basis of (b) it would be free to P’s wife to make the challenge and be represented in Court, and if they granted it on the basis of (a)  she would have to make a contribution, and in this case the level of those contributions would be at a level where she could not afford it and thus have to represent herself in proceedings about whether in effect her husband should be allowed to die.  (P’s wife and his family would like the CANH to be withdrawn and P provided with palliative care, the hospital would wish to continue the feeding treatment)

 

I have to say that my immediate view on this was that whilst P is not free to get up and leave the hospital, and he does not enjoy the same liberty as you and I, it is EXTREMELY hard to argue that the restrictions on his liberty is imposed on him by the State. They are surely a natural consequence of his medical condition.

Briggs v Briggs and Others 2016  EWCOP 48

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2016/48.html

Charles J says this:-

 

 

  • The case has been argued before me on the premise that:

 

i) applying the decision of the Supreme Court in P (By His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another; P and Q (By Their Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19; [2014] AC 896 (“Cheshire West”) Mr Briggs is being deprived of his liberty at the Walton Centre, andii) the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (the DOLS) apply to Mr Briggs (and so the point referred to in paragraph 101 of my judgment in LF v HM Coroner [2015] EWHC 2990 (Admin); [2016] WLR 2385 was not advanced).

One of the reasons for this was that the LF case is listed to be heard in the Court of Appeal before Christmas.

 

  • In any event, if I am right in AM v South London & Maudsley NHS & Secretary of State for Health [2013] UKUT 365 (AAC); [2013] COPLR 510 the DOLS may well continue to apply for some time to the circumstances in which Mr Briggs finds himself in the hospital (and on any move to another hospital) on the basis that he may be being deprived of his liberty.
  • I accept that this approach is a sensible one but record that it was made for and limited to the preliminary issue before me in this case. At least one of the parties indicated that it was not accepted that Mr Briggs was being deprived of his liberty and all parties reserved their right to argue that one or both of the underlying premises is incorrect.
  • I also make the general comments that:

 

i) the circumstances in which Mr Briggs finds himself flow inexorably from his accident, the damage that caused to his brain and body and the package of care and treatment that damage necessitated on and after his admission to hospital, and soii) to my mind, it follows that it cannot be said that his deprivation of liberty in hospital is imposed by others as, for example might be said in respect of the consequence of decisions made to admit and detain a person in hospital under s. 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

 

 

  • A standard authorisation under the DOLS in respect of Mr Briggs has been granted by the relevant supervisory body at the request of the Walton Centre. It expires in December.

 

I will cut to the chase – Charles J did decide to treat this case as a s21A case, and thus has found that Mr Briggs (P) is being deprived of his liberty and is entitled to make use (through his family) of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

 

  • 74. So if the result of the CANH issue is that it should be part of Mr Briggs’ treatment, I consider that:

 

i) pending a move to a rehabilitation centre, the authorisation of his deprivation of liberty at the hospital should no longer be governed by the standard authorisation (continued if necessary by the COP) but by the welfare order made by the COP although a continuation of a DOLS authorisation is a possibility,ii) so (unless there is an automatic termination) the existing DOLS authorisation should be terminated under s. 21A(3) as a direct consequence of the best interests CANH decision,

iii) the making of orders under s. 21A (6) and (7) may need to be considered, and

iv) how the deprivation of liberty at the rehabilitation centre is to be authorised should be addressed by the COP and it may be that any court order should end on the transfer and that reliance should then be placed on s. 5 of the MCA and a DOLS authorisation.

 

  • 75. Alternatively, if the conclusion of the COP on the CANH issue is that it should not be part of Mr Briggs’ treatment I consider that:

 

i) the position relating to Mr Briggs’ deprivation of liberty pending a move to another placement where Mr Briggs receives palliative care should be covered by a court order although if the treating team change their position authorisation under a continuation of a DOLS authorisation is a possibility,ii) so (unless there is an automatic termination) the existing DOLS authorisation should be terminated under s. 21A(3) as a direct result of the best interests decision as a direct consequence of the best interests CANH decision,

iii) the making of orders under s. 21A(6) and (7) will need to be considered, and

iv) how the deprivation of liberty at the new placement (probably a hospice) is to be authorised should be addressed by the COP.

 

  •  So I agree that the determinative or central issue is whether CANH is in Mr Briggs’ best interests and the conclusion on it should found an order under s. 16(2). But, in my view the consequences set out in the last two paragraphs mean that the determination of that issue by the COP founds and so is directly relevant to its consideration of its exercise of its functions under s. 21A (which it can exercise whether or not proceedings above have been issued under s. 21A).

 

 

{I’m very glad that I don’t work in a hospital legal department, because it is now very unclear to me whether every patient they have in an unconscious state or coma requires a DOLS authorisation. It is certainly a possible interpretation of this case}

 

Mrs Briggs argued in the case that s21A did apply . The Official Solicitor, the Secretary of State and the Legal Aid Agency argued that it didn’t, and that even if this WERE a DOLS case, there should be one non-means certificate to deal specifically with the issue of whether P’s liberty should be deprived, and another to deal with best interests decision about his care plan and treatment. The Hospital Trust were entirely neutral. It seems rather odd to me that nobody argued before the Court that the s21A issue is a contrivance using complicated legal finesse to attract non-means public funding to a situation where it doesn’t really apply.  (Perhaps they didn’t argue it because it appears that the idea emerged from decisions made by Charles J himself in other cases…)

 

 

  • It was not argued the proceedings issued by Mrs Briggs were an abuse or a contrivance. Indeed it was accepted that:

 

i) they were not,ii) the COP can grant relief under other sections of the MCA (and so under ss. 15 and 16) in an application under s. 21A (see Re UF [2013] 4289 at paragraph 11 and CC v KK [2012] EWHC 2136 (COP)), and so

iii) the COP could have granted relief in this case under ss. 15 and 16 if the only application before it had been that made by Mrs Briggs in reliance on s. 21A, and it could do this without directing that a further application be made,

iv) Practice Direction 9E, and no other Rule or provision, provided that an application “relating to” a best interests decision about serious medical treatment should be commenced in any particular way,

v) there was no difficulty in complying with Practice Direction 9E in proceedings issued in reliance on s. 21A and, in any event, Rule 26 of the COP Rules 2007 enables the COP to depart from it,

vi) whatever the result on the CANH issue Mr Briggs will continue to be deprived of his liberty and so when the COP determines that issue it will need to address how that deprivation of liberty is authorised, and

vii) on the approach taken in Re UF the authorisation under the DOLS (or a replacement) would remain in existence until the COP had decided the CANH issue and a decision about it under ss. 21A (3), (6) and (7) would or may be needed.

 

  • The points listed in the last paragraph are important because they mean that:

 

i) Mrs Briggs’ proceedings are proceedings under s. 21A and that applying Re UF until this case is decided by the COP an authorisation under the DOLS will remain in existence and so on any view those proceedings have an authorisation to bite on, and in my viewii) the COP can grant relief under s. 21A in an application brought for orders under ss. 15 and 16 of the MCA (the mirror image of Re UF and CC v KK).

 

  • Re UF addressed the same Legal Aid Regulation and identified a route (accepted by the LAA) that:

 

i) continued eligibility for non means tested legal aid although the COP (rather than the supervisory body) took the relevant decisions, andii) meant that what happened to that authorisation was a live issue at the end of the case.

 

  • My understanding is that the approach set out in Re UF has been applied in a number of proceedings brought under s. 21A which have turned on a detailed assessment of the relevant package of care, support and treatment, possible alternatives and which of them the COP has concluded will best promote P’s best interests.
  • So Re UF identified a route that the LAA accepted was not a contrivance by which non means tested legal aid was available albeit that the COP took over all decision making and could make decisions under ss. 15, 16 and 21A. Here Mrs Briggs’ proceedings came first and in Re UF separate proceedings seeking a welfare order and/or declarations had not been issued. Whether proceedings under s. 21A could be issued second to trigger eligibility to non means tested legal aid was not argued before me, but it would be surprising if the order of issue affected the application of Re UF and so the availability of non means tested legal aid. Also, it was not argued before me whether applying Regulation 5 non means tested legal aid could be given to both P and an RPR or only to one of them. I expressed the preliminary view that it could be given to both.
  • Experience indicates that many if not most cases brought under s. 21A in respect of a DOLS authorisation turn on the best interests assessment made by the COP and many lead to changes in the package of care, support and treatment to make it less restrictive rather than a change of circumstances that result in P no longer being deprived of his physical liberty and that these are implemented by or reflected in orders made under s. 21A varying the DOLS authorisation directly or by reference to the care plan it is based on or imposing conditions as a direct result of the best interests conclusion reached by the COP.

 

Charles J had THIS to say about the legal aid agency

 

 

  • The positions of the Secretary of State, the LAA and the Official Solicitor varied on the availability of non means tested legal aid for representation to present arguments on issues relating to the care, support or treatment of a P and so his care plan and needs assessment, and so on what the COP could properly consider and grant relief in respect of under or applying s. 21A:

 

i) the Official Solicitor submitted that non means tested funding for such representation was not available for any of such issues because they all related to the conditions of a detention and so were outside the ambit of the DOLS and s. 21A,ii) the Secretary of State submitted that such funding was available for representation on such issues if they related to “physical liberty”. As I understand the Secretary of State’s position that includes an examination of less restrictive conditions relating to physical liberty even though they also create a deprivation of liberty within Article 5 in the same or a different placement (e.g. a change from locked doors to door sensors and greater freedom of movement within a Care Home). But if that understanding is wrong, it is clear that the Secretary of State distinguishes between conditions that relate to physical liberty and those that do not – which, in the context of alternative regimes at the only available Care Home, it was submitted include the availability of en suite bathrooms or food choices or things of that nature. That distinction flows from the way in which the Secretary of State advanced his argument by reference to what is and is not covered by and so justiciable under Article 5, and

iii) although at the hearing it adopted the arguments of the Secretary of State on the meaning and effect of s. 21A and Regulation 5, the LAA was not prepared to commit to any circumstances in which it accepted that such funding was available for representation on such issues.

 

  • That stance of the LAA and experience of its general approach founds the conclusion that there is a real risk that:

 

i) it will seek to advance any point it considers to be arguable to avoid paying legal aid on a non means tested basis in respect of issues relevant to the circumstances of a P who is the subject of a DOLS authorisation,ii) in doing so, it will change its existing approach in such cases and so challenge Re UF and/or change the stance it adopted in that case,

iii) in doing so, it will adopt the position of the Official Solicitor and not that of the Secretary of State set out in paragraph 36 (i) and (ii) respectively.

 

  • After the hearing I was helpfully provided with further information by counsel for the LAA about its approach in the past and the future. This refers to the reliance placed on what the LAA is told and indicates that the approach in Re UF is being and will continue to be accepted and applied with the result that if the COP continues the DOLS authorisation non means tested legal aid will continue to be available in respect of applications about it. But it asserts that non means tested legal aid is (and has only been made) available in respect of matters that “relate directly to the discharge or variation of the standard or urgent authorisation” and that providers should always apply for a separate certificate to carry out non means tested services as and when these arise alongside a non means tested matter. This does not fully accord with the understanding of the solicitors acting for Mrs Briggs on the existing approach of the LAA and, more importantly it does not explain:

 

i) what matters the LAA says are directly related to the discharge or variation of a continuing DOLS authorisation, andii) whether it adopts the position of the Secretary of State or the Official Solicitor.

To my mind, although it seems to show that Re UF will continue to be applied this further information perpetuates uncertainty and so compounds the risk that the approach of the LAA will give rise to serious and possibly insurmountable hurdles being put in the way of challenges being made by Ps and/or their RPRs to a DOLS authorisation, and so the lawfulness of P’s deprivation of liberty, with the benefit of representation or at all because of the difficulties they would face in respect of contributions and as litigants in person.

 

 

Charles J also had this to say about the Secretary of State and the failure to provide proper scheme for legal representation in the avalanche of DOLS cases since the Supreme Court’s decision in Cheshire West opened the scope of such cases far wider than they had historically been.

 

 

  • The representation of P has been an issue in a line cases that do not fall within the DOLS but in which, applying Cheshire West, P is being deprived of his liberty and so that detention should be authorised by an order made by the COP. The last in the line is Re JM [2016] EWCOP 15. Those cases show the limitations on the availability of legal aid in such cases if they are not disputed. After the JM case, the Secretary of State has acknowledged in correspondence that, contrary to his stance in that case, a resource of people and/or of resources to provide people to act as representatives for Ps who are deprived of their liberty in such cases is not readily available. This means that:

 

i) in that type of case the COP cannot lawfully authorise the deprivations of liberty, and soii) such cases are being stayed, and

iii) many (probably in the thousands rather than the hundreds) of such cases are not being brought in part because they will be stayed and the costs of issuing them can be better spent.

 

  • We are all only too aware of problems flowing from austerity. But assessed through my eyes as Vice President of the Court of Protection the stance being taken by the Secretary of State in this case, and in and after Re JM, demonstrates the existence of a continuing failure by the Secretary of State to address an urgent need to take steps to provide resources that would enable the COP to deal with cases relating to probably thousands of Ps in a lawful way, and so in accordance with the procedural requirements of Article 5 and the requirements of Article 6. The result of this sorry state of affairs is that in probably thousands of cases not covered by the DOLS deprivations of liberty are not being authorised under the amendments made to the MCA by the MHA 2007 to comply with Article 5.

 

I think that most people practising in this area of work know that this is what is happening on the ground, but damn, it is nice to see the Secretary of State being told it in such clear terms.

 

For my part, I think legally that this is a pure device to get around the much loathed LASPO and it is a contrivance; but that it is surely the right outcome in terms of fairness. If anyone found themselves in the dreadful position that Mrs Briggs was in, surely they should have legal representation to help with the Court’s decision as to whether her husband should be fed via artificial means to keep him alive or whether he should be allowed to die with dignity in accordance with his family’s wishes.  Whatever stance you take on the right to die issue, surely it is unacceptable for the State to expect someone to have those difficult arguments without the benefit of legal representation.

 

 

Cheshire Cat, Cheshire Act

 

Following the Supreme Court decision in Cheshire West, which greatly expanded the definition of restriction of liberty to the point where the system has almost entirely broken down due to the huge increase in volume, the Law Commission have published an interim report on Deprivation of Liberty.

Unsurprisingly, they say that there’s no hot-fix available for the current mess we are in, and their recommendation is for Parliament to produce a brand new Act to put things right.

Given that Deprivation of Liberty was brought about as a solution for the Bournwood gap when the ECHR finally dealt with that case and told us that there was a truck-sized plot hole in our legislation about restricting the liberty of people who were not criminals and not mentally ill,  “for their own good”,  it probably did well to last as long as it did before crumbling like, well like, Cheshire cheese.

 

http://www.familylaw.co.uk/system/froala_assets/documents/799/law_commission_deprivation_of_liberty_dols_mental_capacity_interim_statement.pdf

 

1.4 We have concluded that legislative change is the only satisfactory solution to the problems we outline below. During the next phase, the Law Commission will
produce draft legislation and a final report. The process of developing draft legislation is likely to result in some changes of substance to the approach outlined here.
This statement should not be construed as necessarily representing our final position.
1.5 The final report and draft legislation will be published before the end of 2016. It will then be for the Government to decide how the recommendations will be taken
forward.
Why, Government, here is some convenient long grass

Why, Government, here is some convenient long grass

 

GO ON THEN!

GO ON THEN!

 

The Law Commission had a healthy response to its consultation, and this bit was, I think, telling

 

Finally, a significant number of consultees argued that any system which is based on Cheshire West
will be unsustainable. It was argued that the acid test defies common sense, the most frequently quoted examples being end-of-
life care andintensive care units. Most concerns related to the practical implications of Cheshire West .
Local authorities reported significant increases in the numbers of referrals locally (often above the tenfold national figure), widespread
non-compliance with time-scales for assessments and many “low-level” or “community” cases being left unassessed. Many queried why the
Law Commission was not seeking to legislate away the acid test.
Onto some detail
1.37 Nevertheless, it is our view that the new scheme must demonstrably reduce the administrative burden and associated costs of complying with the DoLS by
providing the maximum benefit for the minimum cost. With this in mind, we have therefore concluded that the new scheme should focus solely on
ensuring that those deprived of their liberty have appropriate and proportionate safeguards,and should not seek to go as widely as the protective care scheme.
1.38 We propose to recommend a more straightforward, streamlined and flexible scheme for authorising a deprivation of liberty. The responsibility for establishing
the case for a deprivation of liberty will be shifted onto the commissioning body (such as the NHS or local authority) that is arranging the relevant care or
treatment, and away from the care provider. This should provide greater clarity,since the body directly responsible for the proposed deprivation of liberty would
need to provide evidence to support its case. The required evidence would include a capacity assessment and objective medical evidence of
the need for a deprivation of liberty on account of the person’s mental health condition. The commissioning body would also be required to undertake certain
steps such as arranging for the provision of advocacy (or assistance from an appropriate person) and consulting with family members and others.
1.39 All those deprived of liberty would be eligible for safeguards to secure the protection of their rights under article 5 of the ECHR. For example, all those
deprived of their liberty (as well as others, such as family members and advocates) would have rights to seek reviews of their deprivation of liberty and
bring legal proceedings to challenge the deprivation of liberty. There will also be comprehensive rights to advocacy.
Sounds good, but the real test is going to be how possible it is going to be for a family member to challenge restrictive care arrangments and what help the State will provide them to do so. We know for example, that the Neary case showed up huge problems with the DoLs regime and had to be fought with tenacity by an exceptional human being to get the right outcome in the end. You could ask Mark Neary whether the protections that were in place and the mechanism for family members to be able to challenge were robust enough and simple to follow. I suspect I know what his answer would be.  It shouldn’t require that a vulnerable person needs someone as remarkable as Mark to stand up for them, not every vulnerable person has that luxury.
http://www.lag.org.uk/magazine/2014/07/the-court-of-protection-steven-neary’s-story.aspx
The Law Commission touch on the Neary case here, and suggest some additional safeguards
1.41 By way of amendments to the rest of the Mental Capacity Act, we will also seek to maintain, as much as possible, the article 8 ECHR protections that were
contained in the supportive care elements of the scheme, but in such a way as to minimise the demand upon services. These amendments will be aimed primarily
at ensuring that there is proper consideration, in advance of the decision being made, of the necessity of removing individuals from their own home and placing
them in institutional care in the name of their best interests.
The failures of public bodies in this regard have been evident in high-profile cases such as London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary and Essex County Council v RF
The amendments would also aim at giving greater priority to the person’s wishes and feelings when a best interests decision is being made, and qualifying the
immunity from legal action in respect of best interests decisions under section 5 of the Mental Capacity Act so as to provide additional procedural safeguards in
respect of certain key decisions by public authorities.
1.42 In addition we are considering whether a defined group of people should receive additional independent oversight of the deprivation of their liberty, which would be undertaken by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional. Owing to the vast number of people now considered to be deprived of their liberty
following Cheshire West, it would not be proportionate or affordable to provide such oversight to all those caught by article 5 of the ECHR. Whilst
we are still working to develop the precise criteria that would operate to identify this group, we envisage that this group would consist of those who are subject
to greater infringement of their rights, including, in particular, their rights to private and family life under article 8 of the ECHR.
And it wouldn’t be a civil service consultation without an omphaloskepsis exercise of deciding what it should be called
1.47 At consultation we provisionally proposed that the First-tier Tribunal should review cases under our new scheme, thereby replacing the role of the Court of
Protection. This proposal was supported by a significant number of consultees.
We were told that the advantages of a tribunal system included its accessibility, informality and speedy decision-making. But others pointed to the existing levels
of knowledge and expertise in the Court of Protection and the difficulties of demarcation or overlap with the remainder of the Mental Capacity Act if a tribunal
jurisdiction was introduced. We have not yet reached a final decision and will be considering our position further over the coming months.
1.48 Finally, perhaps the issue that provoked most debate at consultation was the nomenclature associated with the DoLS. Most consultees felt that the term
“deprivation of liberty safeguards” was at best unhelpful and, at worst, meant that people were being denied access to legal rights. Some consultees were similarly
critical of our proposed new terminology, including the label “protective care”. A number of consultees suggested the name “liberty safeguards”, whilst the next
favourite was “capacity safeguards”. However, there was no consensus on the terminology that should be adopted. Therefore we invite further
views (by 23 June 2016) on the name that should be given to the new scheme.
Please send your suggestions to Olivia.Bird@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk.
There are some legitimate issues here about how naming something creates a set of preconceptions about what the scheme is for and whether it is intended to be a rights-based or a patrician cotton wool scheme, or where on the scale it falls, but this sort of thing always does remind me of Douglas Adams, writing about a bunch of middle-managers and marketing execs who fled their own planet and find themselves living on Earth in the stone age, trying to rebuild society from the ground up.
Well, you’re obviously being totally naive of course“, said the girl, “When you’ve been in marketing as long as I have, you’ll know that before any new product can be developed it has to be properly researched. We’ve got to find out what people want from fire, how they relate to it, what sort of image it has for them.”
The crowd were tense. They were expecting something wonderful from Ford.
Stick it up your nose,” he said.
“Which is precisely the sort of thing we need to know,” insisted the girl, “Do people want fire that can be fitted nasally?
“And the wheel,” said the Captain, “What about this wheel thingy? It sounds a terribly interesting project.”
“Ah,” said the marketing girl, “Well, we’re having a little difficulty there.”
“Difficulty?” exclaimed Ford. “Difficulty? What do you mean, difficulty? It’s the single simplest machine in the entire Universe!
The marketing girl soured him with a look.
“Alright, Mr. Wiseguy,” she said, “if you’re so clever, you tell us what colour it should be.

Bickering (or the ever decreasing circle of life continues)

[Grateful to @dilettantevoice for highlighting this case to me on Twitter]

 

You may recall the Court of Appeal taking Mostyn J to task for taking them to task for taking him to task.

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/10/22/ever-decreasing-circles-court-of-appeal-take-mostyn-j-to-task-for-taking-them-to-task-for-taking-him-to-task/

 

Well, none of you thought that it would end there, did you?

Re CD 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/74.html

An exceptionally tricky case, and one absolutely can’t underestimate just how difficult a job High Court Judges have to do. This one involved a woman with very severe mental health problems, who after she stabbed herself in the stomach, the hospital found that she had tumours in her stomach that needed to be removed. Although the woman was detained under the Mental Health Act, the power to perform treatment against a person’s will under that Act is really confined to treatment for their mental health, and this was a physical treatment. As the woman would be under anesthetic at the time, the High Court has previously ruled that this would be a deprivation of liberty.

A NHS Trust v A [2013] EWHC 2442(Fam) [2014] Fam 161

Additionally, there’s the complication of some wording in the Mental Capacity Act which suggests that a deprivation of liberty can only be dealt with under the Mental Health Act if the person is detained under the Mental Health Act.

 

 

  • he confusion surrounding the main test is mirrored by the confusion that the interface with the MHA gives rise to. I recently have had to grapple with this in Re A [2015] EWCOP 71. Mr Justice Baker has given a characteristically exhaustive judgment on the subject in A NHS Trust v A [2013] EWHC 2442(Fam) [2014] Fam 161 as has Judge Parry in A Local Health Board v AB [2015] EWCOP 31. The confusion arises from the highly ambiguous and double negative laden terms of para 3(2) of Schedule 1A to the MCA 2005. This states:

 

“P is ineligible if the authorised course of action is not in accordance with a requirement which the relevant regime imposes”

 

  • In this case CD is P. “Ineligible” means ineligible to be deprived of liberty by the 2005 Act. The “authorised course of action” is the surgical removal of the ovarian masses. The “relevant regime” is the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital. So, for our purposes, para 3(2) reads:

 

“CD is ineligible to be deprived of liberty by the 2005 Act if the surgical removal of the ovarian masses is not in accordance with a requirement which the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital imposes.”

 

  • Mr Auburn rightly says that there are two ways of reading this which give rise to directly contradictory results. The first is in a pitilessly literal way, as argued by Mr Matthewson. It is this: if the surgical removal of the ovarian masses is not in accordance with a requirement of the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital then CD is ineligible to be deprived of liberty by the 2005 Act. It isn’t, he says, so she is ineligible and so the necessary orders have to be made under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court. The problem with this interpretation is that it gives rise to a result directly contrary to the intention of the statute and to the express terms of the Code of Practice, as I explained in Re A at paras 10 – 14 (accepting the submissions not only of Ms Butler-Cole but also of Ms Dolan, on that occasion instructed by the Official Solicitor).
  • The alternative interpretation, which I adopted in Re A, and which I maintain to be correct is this: if the MHA regime whereby CD is compulsorily detained in a mental hospital imposes a specific requirement for dealing with the problem of the ovarian masses then CD is ineligible to be deprived of her liberty under the 2005 Act for the purposes of dealing with the problem by a different procedure under that Act. It doesn’t (obviously) so she isn’t ineligible. As I said in Re A this is plainly what the scheme of section 16A and Schedule 1A intends and the matter is conclusively confirmed by paras 4.50 and 4.51 of the Code of Practice. In my judgment it would be ridiculous if the whole case had to leave the Court of Protection with its statutory powers and enter the High Court exercising common law inherent powers by virtue of a pedantically literal reading of para 3(2).
  • The orders which I make will be made by me sitting in the Court of Protection under powers granted by Parliament in the MCA.

 

 

Mostyn J is utterly and completely right here, the wording of this piece of the legislation is ghastly (double-negatives are really not something that you want in a piece of legislation anywhere, particularly about something so serious) and it has left a serious lacuna in the law.  And you know how High Court Judges tend to solve lacunas in the law – that’s right, the ‘theoreticaly limitless powers of the inherent jurisdiction’  [Though not here, Mostyn eschewing Baker J’s inherent jurisdiction solution to say instead that the power must really remain under the MCA]

 

A very tricky case, and almost all of what Mostyn J says in the judgment is careful, apposite and fair.

Unfortunately, this passage decides to resurrect the quarrel with both the Supreme Court in Cheshire West, and the Court of Appeal

 

In KW & Ors v Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2015] EWCA Civ 1054 at para 32 the Court of Appeal stated “even if Cheshire West is wrong, there is nothing confusing about it”. It may seem that way from the lofty heights of the Court of Appeal; and of course the literal words of the Supreme Court’s test are perfectly easy to understand. But for we hoplites who have to administer it at first instance the scope and ramifications of the test are, with respect, extremely confusing. As Mr Matthewson, instructed by the Official Solicitor for CD, rightly stated “anyone who deals with this day by day knows this is confusing”. What of the situation where, as here, the protected person actively and fervently expresses the wish to undergo the procedure that is said to amount to a deprivation of liberty? What of the situation, as was the case in Bournemouth Borough Council v PS & Anor [2015] EWCOP 39, where the protected person shows no inclination whatsoever to leave the home where he is cared for round the clock? What of the situation where the protected person is seriously disabled, perhaps bedridden, perhaps in a coma, and is thus physically incapable of exercising the freedom to leave? The answers I received from the Bar when discussing these scenarios belie the blithe suggestion that “there is nothing confusing” about the test. I do not accept the criticism that my approach to these cases is “distorted” by my “passionate” and “tenacious” belief that Cheshire West is wrong. Rather, it is a loyal approach which tries to apply literally and purposively the Supreme Court’s test while at the same time pointing out how confusing and curious it is, to say nothing of the cost it causes to the public purse

 

 

I think that there IS an argument about whether Baker J’s decision in Re A (that the surgical procedure amounts to a deprivation of liberty) actually meets the test in Cheshire West – I think that one can argue it either way and a strong case can be made for if a Court has declared that the procedure is in P’s best interests despite a lack of consent that the patient has had sufficient safeguards and an additional authorisation of a Deprivation of Liberty isn’t necessary.

It is also quite right that we now have a definition of deprivation of liberty which is utterly unworkable in practice due to resource implications (as we have seen, if every LA issued every deprivation of liberty application that they need to on the wording of Cheshire West, the Court would spend the next five years dealing with this years cases, and so on), and that the MCA on this particular issue is badly in need of reform. Such reform not likely to hit us until 2017 at best.

 

But the Rule of Law is the Rule of Law.  Whatever one might think of the Cheshire West test (and personal opinions and critiques of it are perfectly valid – it wasn’t a unanimous decision on all issues in the Supreme Court itself), the test has been set and it is now to be applied.  In the first of the two examples, it is really plain that the absence of resistance from P if they lack capacity is neither here nor there, that’s not a legitimate part of the test. After all, that was the very issue in Bournewood that led to the development of the MCA in  the first place. The latter question of whether you assess whether a person is being deprived of their liberty by looking at their physical characteristics has been squashed by the Supreme Court.

[There IS , I think an argument about whether someone who is physically prevented temporarily from getting up to leave – under anaesthetic for example, or that they have a broken leg that will heal, meets the Cheshire West test. But that’s for a Judge to determine when they are faced with an application of the test to those particular facts]

 

It is a fine line between a Judge being free to criticise the law when it is resulting in unfairness and staying out of politics and just applying the law as it is to the facts of the case.

I’m aware that I am being hypocritical here – because I do think that Judges can and should speak out when the law at present is unfair and makes unreasonable outcomes when it is applied.  Because when Mostyn J and others have attacked LASPO, I’ve supported and applauded them. That is a law whose application is currently unfair (particularly the Legal Aid Agency’s approach to granting exceptional funding where human rights require it, but ignoring when Judges tell them that this particular case would breach a person’s human rights if funding were not given).  I also disagree with LASPO itself, but I’m stuck with it unless and until Parliament changes it. So, am I just as unreasonable as Mostyn J considers the Court of Appeal to be – given that I’m happy for him to critique and attack the law when I agree with him, but criticise him when I think the law is right?

Damn, I’ve painted myself into a corner here.

 

Perhaps what we need is a case with the citation Mostyn J v Court of Appeal  (to be decided in the Supreme Court)

Ever decreasing circles – Court of Appeal take Mostyn J to task for taking them to task for taking him to task…

 

Readers of the blog may be familiar with Mostyn J’s continuing battle to have the Supreme Court change their mind about the deprivation of liberty test set down in Cheshire West, and failing that to simply disagree with their decision at every opportunity.

In this particular case, Rochdale had asked Mostyn J to authorise a care plan for a person lacking capacity that clearly amounted, on the Cheshire West test to a deprivation of liberty.

At the first hearing, Mostyn J told everyone that Cheshire West was nonsense (politely and judicially and intellectually, but that was the gist) and that the person was not being deprived of their liberty and thus there was no need to authorise it.

The case was appealed, and rather unusually, by the time that it got to the Court of Appeal EVERYONE agreed that the Mostyn J judgment should be overturned and that the person was being deprived of their liberty. The Court of Appeal approved a consent order to that effect but did not give a judgment explaining why Mostyn J had been wrong  (perhaps wrongly thinking that where everyone agreed the Judge was wrong and that he had gone against a clear Supreme Court decision with which he did not agree but was not able to distinguish the instant case from, that it was somewhat plain)

 

 

It went back to Mostyn J to authorise or not, the deprivation of liberty. However, he declined and took everyone, including the Court of Appeal to task and said that a consent order without a judgment was not binding on him. And thus did not reach the point of authorising the deprivation, but instead set down a hearing to be conducted by himself as to whether there was a deprivation of liberty at all.

Incredibly bravely (but rightly), the parties appealed THAT, and the Court of Appeal determined it.

[Previous blog on Round 3 of this peculiar litigation is here   https://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/03/16/mostyn-powers/  ]

 

So, by way of catch-up here, in this one case, Mostyn J disagreed with the Supreme Court, then when the Court of Appeal disagreed with him, he disagreed with them. And now the Court of Appeal disagree with him again.

In the midst of all of this, are some real people with real problems to resolve, and a lot of taxpayers money being spent.

KW and Others v Rochdale MBC 2015

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/1054.html

 

The Court of Appeal pull no punches whatsoever. In fact I understand that this was very much what it looked like when the Master of the Rolls removed his gloves after the judgment

 

 

The Master of the Rolls does not have to go through the metal detectors en route to the Court room

The Master of the Rolls does not have to go through the metal detectors en route to the Court room

 

But first, the technical part of the appeal – if the Court of Appeal approve a consent order overturning the decision of the original Judge but don’t give a judgment, is the case actually overturned? (I understand that this is actually one of the lesser known and unpopular Zen koans)

 

The grounds of appeal from the second judgment

 

  • The principal ground of appeal is that the judge misinterpreted the consent order when he said that the Court of Appeal had not decided that KW was being deprived of her liberty.
  • We accept that (i) nowhere does the order explicitly state that there was a deprivation of liberty; and (ii) the use in para 2 of the order of the words “to the extent that the restrictions in place pursuant to the Care Plan are a deprivation of KW’s liberty, such liberty is hereby authorised” might suggest that the court was not deciding that the restrictions were in fact a deprivation of liberty. But read in their context, that is clearly not the correct interpretation for at least two reasons. First, para 2 must be read in the light of para 1, which governs the whole order. Para 1 states that the appeal is allowed. The remaining paragraphs set out the court’s directions consequential upon the allowing of the appeal. When read together with section 6 of the notice of appeal, the order that the appeal was allowed necessarily involved the court deciding that KW’s care package does involve a deprivation of liberty. The words “to the extent that” etc are perhaps unfortunate, but they cannot detract from what allowing the appeal necessarily entailed. These words were derived from para 11 of the Model Re X Order which had been published on the Court of Protection website and which practitioners had been encouraged to use. We were told by counsel that this form of words is not universally used. We understand that the form of words more often used is along the lines of: “P is deprived of his or her liberty as a result of arrangements in the Care Plan and these are lawful”. This is undoubtedly preferable to the earlier version.
  • Secondly, para 2 must also be read in the light of the consequential orders set out at paras 3 to 5 of the consent order. The reviews there provided for are clearly reviews of the kind contemplated where there is a deprivation of liberty.
  • It follows that the judge was wrong to hold that it had not been decided by this court that KW was being detained by the state within the terms of article 5. The appeal must, therefore, be allowed.

 

Was the consent order made ultra vires?

 

  • Was the judge right to say that the Court of Appeal took “a procedurally impermissible route” so that its decision was “ultra vires”? It is important that we comment on this statement in view of the general importance of the point and the fact that the judge’s comments have apparently given rise to considerable degree of public interest. We acknowledge that, despite these comments, the judge did say that the rule of law depends on first instance judges “complying scrupulously with decisions and orders from appellate courts”. And, as we have said, that is what he purported to do.
  • An order of any court is binding until it is set aside or varied. This is consistent with principles of finality and certainty which are necessary for the administration of justice: R (on the application of Lunn) v Governor of Moorland Prison [2006] EWCA Civ 700, [2006] 1 WLR 2870, at [22]; Serious Organised Crime Agency v O’Docherty (also known as Mark Eric Gibbons) and another [2013] EWCA Civ 518 at [69]. Such an order would still be binding even if there were doubt as to the court’s jurisdiction to make the order: M v Home Office [1993] UKHL 5; [1994] 1 AC 377 at 423; Isaacs v Robertson [1985] AC 97 at 101-103. It is futile and, in our view, inappropriate for a judge, who is called upon to give effect to an order of a higher court which is binding on him, to seek to undermine that order by complaining that it was ultra vires or wrong for any other reason.
  • In any event, the judge was wrong to say that the consent order was ultra vires because it was made by a procedurally impermissible route.
  • The issue turns on the true construction of para 6.4 of PD 52A. Rule 52.11 provides that the appeal court will allow an appeal where the decision of the lower court (a) was wrong or (b) was unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity in the proceedings of the lower court. It is concerned with the “hearing of appeals” which is done by way of a review or, in certain circumstances, a re-hearing. What is envisaged by rule 52.11 is a hearing which leads to a decision on the merits. To use the language of the first sentence of para 6.4 of the practice direction, this is what an appellate court normally does when allowing an appeal.
  • The use of the word “normally” in this sentence presages a departure from rule 52.11 in specified circumstances. The word “normally” followed by the use of the word “however” in the following sentence makes it clear that what follows specifies the circumstances in which the court may depart from the norm. The second sentence states that the court may set aside or vary the order of the lower court without determining the merits of the appeal, but only if (i) the parties consent and (ii) the court is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for taking this course. That such a decision will be made on paper is clear from the heading to para 6.4 and the words of the third sentence. It is true that the second sentence speaks of setting aside or varying the order under appeal, whereas the first sentence (faithful to rule 52.11) speaks of allowing an appeal. But we do not consider that there is any significance in this difference of language. Rule 52.10 provides inter alia that the appeal court has power to “(2)(a) affirm, set aside or vary any order or judgment made or given by the lower court”. These words are picked up precisely in para 6.4 which sets out the powers that the appeal court has when allowing an appeal.
  • The appeal court, therefore, has a discretion to allow an appeal by consent on the papers without determining the merits at a hearing if it is satisfied that there are good and sufficient reasons for doing so. What are good and sufficient reasons? The answer will depend on the circumstances of the case, but we think that it would be helpful to provide some guidance. If the appeal court is satisfied that (i) the parties’ consent to the allowing of the appeal is based on apparently competent legal advice, and (ii) the parties advance plausible reasons to show that the decision of the lower court was wrong, it is likely to make an order allowing the appeal on the papers and without determining the merits. In such circumstances, it would involve unnecessary cost and delay to require the parties to attend a hearing to persuade the appeal court definitively on the point.
  • At para 14 of his judgment, the judge said that, where a merits based decision has been reached at first instance which all parties agree should be set aside on appeal, para 6.4 requires there to be a hearing and a judgment. He added: “The judge whose decision is being impugned is surely entitled to no less, and there is a plain need to expose error so that later legal confusion does not arise”. We disagree. Para 6.4 does not require a decision on the merits in every case where there has been a decision on the merits in the lower court. There is no reason to restrict in this way the wide discretion conferred by para 6.4 to allow an appeal by consent without a hearing followed by a decision on the merits. The words “good and sufficient reasons” are very wide. Further, we reject the notion that the judge whose decision is under appeal has any entitlement to a decision on the merits. In deciding whether to make a consent order without a decision on the merits, the appeal court is only concerned with the interests of the parties and the public interest. The interests of the judge are irrelevant.
  • We accept, however, that there will be cases where it may be in the interest of the parties or the public interest for the court to make a decision on the merits after a hearing even where the parties agree that the appeal should be allowed. Mostyn J referred to cases in the field of family law. For example, in Bokor-Ingram v Bokor-Ingram [2009] EWCA Civ 27, [2009] 2 FLR 922, the parties by consent asked the court to allow an appeal, set aside the order below and make a revised order. Thorpe LJ said:

 

“5. A short disposal might have followed but for our concerns that the judgment below had already been reported …..and was causing, or was likely to cause, difficulty for specialist practitioners and judges in this field of ancillary relief.

6. Accordingly, we decided to state shortly why we had reached a preliminary conclusion that the appeal, had it not been compromised, would in any event have been allowed.”

 

  • The fact that the decision of the lower court in that case was causing difficulty led the appellate court to conclude that there were not “good and sufficient reasons” for departing from the normal procedure of conducting a hearing and giving a decision on the merits.
  • An example from a different area of law is Halliburton Energy Services Inc v Smith International (North Sea) Ltd [2006] [EWCA] Civ 185. The lower court had held that a certain patent was invalid. Following the issue of appeal proceedings, the case was settled. The Court of Appeal was asked to make a consent order for the restoration of the patent to the register without deciding the merits of the appeal. The court decided that it had to hear the merits on the grounds that, for a patent to be restored to the register, what was needed was a decision reversing the order for revocation and showing that the previous decision was wrong. Here too (but for a very different reason), the appellate court considered that a decision on the merits was needed.

 

 

 

But you aren’t here for the technicalities. You want to see what happened with that boxing glove and the horseshoes.

 

 

  • Mostyn J’s first judgment did not raise any issue of law. It is true that his criticism of Cheshire West (what he describes in para 20 of the second judgment as his “jurisprudential analysis”) raised a question of law. But this question has been settled by the Supreme Court relatively recently. The judge’s analysis was, and could be, of no legal effect. It was irrelevant. Indeed, he purported to apply Cheshire West to the facts of the case. The basis of the appeal was that he had failed to apply Cheshire West to the facts properly. The public interest in the first judgment has focused on his criticisms of Cheshire West. Unlike Bokor-Ingram, the decision of the lower court in the present case should have caused no difficulty for practitioners or judges in the field. It was a decision on the facts which, with benefit of the advice of counsel and solicitors, the parties agreed was wrong. The Court of Appeal must have taken the view that the parties had advanced plausible reasons for contending that the judge’s decision was wrong, so that there were good and sufficient reasons for allowing the appeal without deciding the merits. In our view, it was clearly right to do so.
  • This litigation has an unfortunate history. The judge has twice made decisions which have been the subject of an appeal to this court. On both occasions, the parties have agreed that the appeal must be allowed. This has led to considerable unnecessary costs to the public purse and unnecessary use of court time. We regret to say that it is the judge’s tenacious adherence to his jurisprudential analysis leading to his conclusion that Cheshire West was wrongly decided that has been at the root of this. He says at para 26 of the second judgment that “the law is now in a state of serious confusion”. Even if Cheshire West is wrong, there is nothing confusing about it.
  • In our view, the judge’s passionate view that the legal analysis of the majority in Cheshire West is wrong is in danger of distorting his approach to these cases. In the light of the unfortunate history, we are of the opinion that the review should be conducted by a different judge, who need not be a high court judge,
  • For the reasons that we have given, this appeal is allowed.

 

 

NRA and Others 2015 (the Charles J DoLS case)

The NRA is often in the news, generally after some terrible incident in an American school and usually positing the opinion that if only everyone on the scene had had a firearm rather than just the sociopathic person shooting everyone nothing bad would have happened.  This is a different NRA. So if you have come here looking for the National Rifle Association (hi Piers, bye Piers) then you’re in the wrong place.

 

This is Charles J’s decision in a group of linked cases designed to test whether in a case where a vulnerable person’s liberty is being deprived as a result of their care package, that person HAS to be represented. The President, said no, we could distinguish between cases where the deprivation is contentious (when they should be represented) and where it is not contentious (where a streamlined fast-track system could be in place where there might not even be a hearing)

 

This came before Charles J as a result of the District Judge who had first got the linked cases realising that this was a real can open, worms everywhere scenario   , described by me here   

https://suesspiciousminds.com/2015/07/13/deprivation-mmmmeltdown

 

This is chief is a pragmatic engineering solution to the huge mountain of such Deprivation of Liberty cases that are going to come before the Courts as a result of the Supreme Court in Cheshire West broadening out the criteria of what consituted a deprivation of the person’s liberty.

Thus, if you don’t do Court of Protection work, you need read no further, and that may be a relief to you, because the thing that most lawyers know about Charles J is this gem from the Court of Appeal in Jones v Jones 2011 :-

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/41.html

 

The appeal judge quoted from an article in the magazine Family Law by Ashley Murray, a Liverpool barrister. This began:

“There are certain challenges each of us should attempt in our lifetime and for most these involve a particular jump, a mountain climb, etc. Akin to these in the legal world would be reading from first to last a judgment of Mr Justice Charles.”

Lord Justice Wilson commented: “Mr Murray’s introductory sentences were witty and brave. In respect at any rate of the judgment in the present case, they were also, I am sorry to say, apposite.”

 

Of course, I have no views on this whatsoever, and merely report the judicial decision of the Court of Appeal in that regard.  I may, however, have prepared a small packed lunch, put on a warm coat and ironed my Welsh flag before I sat down to tackle the judgment in NRA and Others 2015.

 

Charlton Heston of the NRA is asked by Dr Zaius to re-read a Charles J judgment

Charlton Heston of the NRA is asked by Dr Zaius to re-read a Charles J judgment

 

 

My mission-statement (sorry I just shuddered) when I began this blog is “I read it, so you don’t have to”.  I have been putting off this particular task for quite some time.

As I outlined, the President had arrived at a two track process – where P (the vulnerable person) would only be represented in a deprivation of liberty case where the deprivation or the plan was contentious.  However, when the Official Solicitor in the case appealed that decision, the Court of Appeal had two things to say – firstly that it hadn’t even been a decision so there was nothing to appeal, but secondly that P should ALWAYS be represented.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/599.html

 

These cases were then the first raft of non-contentious cases that were run as test cases to work out what the hell was going on. It had become really apparent that the Official Solicitors office, who normally represent P would be utterly overwhelmed by demand and that the practical implications of following the Court of Appeal’s guidance (since it is obiter and not ratio) would be to grind the whole system to a halt, and more importantly make it impossible for P to be represented in a contentious case.

So there were a few questions

Should P always be represented?  Could P be represented by a litigation friend instead of the Official Solicitor? Would that litigation friend be able to speak in Court if they didn’t have rights of audience?

Re NRA and Others 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/59.html

If I tell you that the judgment contains 269 paragraphs, and that a full 16 of them come under the sub-heading of “Flaws and gaps in the reasoning of the Court of Appeal”  you get much of the flavour of the whole thing without having to read it all.  A state of affairs for which I envy you.

 

It is a curious thing, and a dreadful position for the Judge to be placed in. To make this decision right in law, and respect the well-established principle of Winterwerp v Netherlands  1980 ..it is essential that the person concerned should have access to a court and the opportunity to be heard either in person or, where necessary, through some form of representation, failing which he will not have been afforded “the fundamental guarantees of procedure applied in matters of deprivation of liberty” …    and the Court of Appeal’s steer which though NOT binding could honestly not have been clearer, the Judge would have to break the Court of Protection system. Barely any case would be heard and injustice done to thousands of cases. The alternative was to take the pragmatic engineering solution of  “This can’t work if we insist on P always being represented, so we’re not going to do that”.   However, it has to be legally dressed up so that it at least looks as though it can withstand an appeal.

 

Charles J makes the following conclusions, which he thankfully summarises at the end

 

A brief summary of my conclusions is that:

(1) P does not have to be a party to all applications for welfare orders sought to authorise, and which when they are made will authorise, a deprivation of P’s liberty caused by the implementation of the care package on which the welfare order is based.

(2) In two of the test cases before me I have made orders that reflect that conclusion and my conclusion that the procedural safeguards required by Article 5 are (and are best) provided in those cases by appointing a parent of P as P’s Rule 3A representative. As such, that parent as a continuation of the dedicated and devoted support given by P’s family to P and directed to promoting P’s best interests, in a balanced way, can best provide (a) the court with the information it requires about the care package and P, and (b) P’s participation in the proceedings. Also, that parent can and in my view will monitor the implementation of the care plan and so initiate any challenge to it or review of it that the parent considers should be made in P’s best interests.

(3) I do not have a test case before me in which (a) P has not been joined as a party and the Official Solicitor has not agreed to act as P’s litigation friend, and (b) the appointment of a family member or friend as P’s Rule 3A representative without joining P as a party is not an available option. Such a test case or cases should be listed for hearing.

(4) In contrast to the Court of Appeal in Re X and subject to further argument in such a test case or cases, I consider that the way in which the Court of Protection can at present best obtain further information and P’s participation in such cases is for it to exercise its investigatory jurisdiction to obtain information through obtaining s. 49 reports or through the issue of a witness summonses. This keeps the matter under the control of the court rather than invoking the necessity of appointing a litigation friend with the problems and delays that history tells us this entails and will entail and I have concluded is, or shortly will be, not fit for purpose.

(5) I do not for a moment suggest that absent further resources being provided there will not be problems and delays in taking the course referred to in paragraph (4). Also, and importantly, I recognise that it would be focused on Article 5(1) and would not provide for monitoring on the ground until it is repeated from time to time for that purpose. But, the appointment of a litigation friend will also not provide that monitoring.

(6) In such cases the argument advanced by the Secretary of State before me that a Rule 3A representative identified by the local authority be appointed shows that if this was a practically available option it would replicate the input that I have decided can be provided by an appropriate family member or friend and so satisfy the procedural safeguards required by Article 5 and common law fairness in non-controversial cases without joining P as a party.

(7) That replication is an obvious solution that will provide the necessary safeguards more efficiently and at less expense than either

i. the making of orders for s. 49 reports and the issuing of witness summonses perhaps coupled with more frequent reviews, or

ii. joining P as a party.

(8) So I urge the Secretary of State and local authorities to consider urgently, and in any event before a test case or cases of this type are before the court, how this solution can be provided on the ground.

 

He also ruled definitively that a litigation friend can, if appointed by the Court, be given the power to conduct litigation

 

Gregory v Turner [2003] 1 WLR 1149, at paragraphs 50 to 58, it is common ground that if and when the court appoints such a litigation friend:

i) it can also give him or her a right of audience and the right to conduct litigation in relation to those proceedings (see Paragraphs 1(2)(b) and 2(1)(b) of Schedule 3 to the 2007 Act),ii) it can remove those rights, and further and alternatively

iii) it can end the appointment of the litigation friend (see COP Rules 144 and 140).

 

[He described the arguments to the contrary made by some of the parties as ‘arid’.  I can’t think of anything to say about that which isn’t churlish, so let’s move on. ]

And that conducting litigation can include anything that P could do themselves as a litigant in person if only they had capacity – so definitively, if a Court appoints a litigation friend and grants them the right to conduct litigation, they can do everything – they can deal with correspondence, draft a statement and address the Court. They can be given rights of audience, even though they would not be someone who has them.

 

I have mixed feelings about this decision – it was an impossible position for the Judge to be in. To make a fair decision would have broken the Court of Protection and caused far more harm to all of the vulnerable people who require its services. On the other hand, I just agree with Winterwerp and feel that if someone is being locked up even if it is ‘for their own good’ they should have someone speaking on their behalf and making such points as ought to be made.

The only thing I would say is that by setting out a huge section entitled “Flaws and gaps in the Court of Appeal’s reasoning”,  we now have a pretty solid indicator that if a decision is made relying on this judgment and someone intends to appeal it, the Court of Appeal are going to be rather interested in getting to grips with it. That really just places even more uncertainty into an area of the law which has been nothing but uncertainty ever since the President first encountered the words “Cheshire West”

The Law Commission reforms of deprivation of liberty can’t come soon enough.

 

 

Should Mr Heston be represented here? Does the net satisfy the Cheshire West 'acid test'?

Should Mr Heston be represented here? Does the net satisfy the Cheshire West ‘acid test’?

Deprivation mmmmeltdown

 

The case of MOD & Others (Deprivation of Liberty) 2015   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/47.html   involved nine unrelated cases where Local Authorities were seeking test cases under the President’s new scheme for ‘fast-tracking’ Deprivation of Liberty authorisations.

 

You may recall that the Court of Appeal dealt with the President’s scheme as it was laid out in Re X  (saying that he did not have the power to do this in a judgment, but as it wasn’t really a judgment they had no jurisdiction to overturn it on appeal, but that in any event, a scheme which didn’t include a voice for P  – the person being detained, would almost certainly be wrong)   http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2015/599.html

 

There’s a Practice Direction for the fast track process now, which will need some slight tweaking in light of Re X.

 

Anyway, this is the first reported authority on how these ‘fast track’ cases will work in practice.  The answer, in short would be  “not well” and “not fast”

 

The problem here is that the current scheme for P to be represented is through the Official Solicitor.   The Official Solictor told the Court that in the month after the Court of Appeal decided Re X  (which was effectively the green light to start bringing the DoLs cases) requests doubled.

 

District Judge Marin said this:-

I understand that at present, about 100 applications have been issued since the Court of Appeal’s decision three weeks ago with more arriving each week. At the hearing, one local authority told me that they alone have “hundreds” that are to be issued imminently.

 

[If anything, that’s something of an understatement. The ballpark figure nationally is that up to 100,000 such cases might be issued in a year, as a result of the wider definition for restriction of liberty settled on by the Supreme Court in Cheshire West]

 

20….the Official Solicitor wrote a letter which is not only referable to the cases before me but also to all other similar cases where he has been invited to act.

  1. The Official Solicitor said this:

    “..I am not currently in a position to accept the invitations to act as litigation friend in the ‘referrals’ in these cases.

    I am most unlikely, on my current understanding of my budgetary position, to be able, even when I have established a light touch process for this class of case, which is nevertheless consistent with my duties as litigation friend, and the external outsourcing to fund them, to be able to accept invitations to act in more than a relatively small proportion of the total expected numbers of these former streamlined procedure cases.

    Even before the dramatic increase for the month of June 2015 …. and these 43 actual and impending invitations to me to act as litigation friend in this class of case, in resource terms my CoP Healthcare and Welfare team was then running at or beyond full stretch, ‘fire fighting’ in a way that was unlikely to be sustainable beyond the short term.”

  2. He went on to elaborate:

    “There has been an increase in the number of invitations to me to act as litigation friend (‘referrals’) for P in Court of Protection welfare applications, including applications for orders the giving effect to which deprives P of their liberty.

    For the three calendar years 2011, 2012 and 2013 the number of new referrals a month averaged 28 cases. In 2014 this increased to an average monthly referral rate of 50 cases. In the five months to the end of May 2015, the monthly referral rate was in excess of 53 cases. In resource terms my CoP Healthcare and Welfare team was then running at or beyond full stretch, ‘fire fighting’ in a way that was unlikely to be sustainable beyond the short term.

    There has been a dramatic increase for the month of June 2015 with 99 new referrals to the end of the month. But that number for June does not include the 43 new invitations to act to which I am responding. As at the end of May I had 137 referrals in my CoP Healthcare and Welfare team, in the ‘pre-acceptance’ stage (which clearly did not include these former streamlined procedure cases).

    From time to time, I have taken those steps I have been able to take, having regard to budgetary constraints and balancing the needs of all my teams, to increase staff available to the work of the healthcare and welfare team as its caseloads have risen.

    But, as has been frequently noted publicly, I do not have the staff resources to manage the expected significant additional increase in caseload arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in Cheshire West.”

      1. Despite reference in the letter to a light touch scheme to allow cases to be processed quickly, the Official Solicitor nonetheless commented that:
        1. “But the simple facts are that:
  • I am not currently in a position to accept the invitations to act as litigation friend in the referrals in these cases; and,
  • I am most unlikely, on my current understanding of my budgetary position, to be able, even when I have established a light touch process, which is nevertheless consistent with my duties as litigation friend, and the external outsourcing to which have I referred above, to be able to accept invitations to act in more than a relatively small proportion of the total expected numbers of these former streamlined procedure cases.”
  1. As if to emphasise the seriousness of the matter, the Official Solicitor copied his letter to the President and Vice President of the court, the local authority applicants in the cases and the Ministry of Justice as his “sponsoring department”.

 

 

The Supreme Court have made a ruling that means there will be thousands more of this case, probably tens of thousands. The Court of Appeal has said that P must have a voice. The organisation who are responsible for P having a voice say that they are already operating at a referral rate four times that which they can actually take (and the deluge hasn’t even begun yet – it is something like 100 a month at the moment, and when these cases really get going, it will be more like five to eight THOUSAND a month)

 

As the wise Lucy Series has said, this is now an engineering problem, rather than a logical one. The system as it is, clearly is not going to cope with what is coming at it.   And once we solve the representation of P problem, we will then have the Best Interests Assessor problem, then the social work problem, then the lawyers for relatives problem, then the Judges problem, then the Court time problem.

You can’t go from a system which just about functions at 25 cases a month and turn it into one that can handle 5,000-8,000 cases a month.  Everyone in family law can tell the Court of Protection just how hard it was to cope with the post Baby P deluge, and that was at worst a doubling of demand. Here demand is going up TWO HUNDRED to THREE HUNDRED times.

 

We shall see what happens when these test cases come before Charles J, the vice president of the Court of Protection, but there really are no easy solutions here.  The Law Commission has recognised the need for a complete overhaul of the law on DoLS, but that’s years off.

 

  1. So far as the remaining eight cases are concerned though, I decided to transfer them to the Vice President of the Court of Protection to decide issues at a hearing which I listed as follows:

    1. Whether P must be joined as a party in a case involving deprivation of liberty

    2. Whether the appointment of a rule 3A representative is sufficient in a case involving deprivation of liberty

    3. If P must be joined as a party, in the absence of any suitable person to act as litigation friend, what should be done in circumstances where the Official Solicitor cannot accept an invitation to act.

    4. Whether a family member can act as litigation friend in circumstances where that family member has an interest in the outcome of the proceedings.

    5. Whether other deprivation of liberty cases not before the court on this occasion but which raise similar issues to this case should be stayed pending a determination of the issues recorded at paragraphs 1 to 4.

  2. With regard to the fifth issue, some of the parties expressed the concern that they have other cases listed and they were loathe to incur the cost of a hearing if a similar order is likely to be made or the court will stay the case pending determination of these issues. To address this, I have invited the Vice President to consider staying the cases presently listed such that hearings already listed may be vacated. It occurs to me that he may also wish to consider whether an automatic stay should be imposed on future cases that are issued.
  3. I have taken the course of referring these cases to the Vice President because it is vital that a decision is made on these issues as quickly as possible. None of the parties were equipped to fully argue the issues at the hearing as they would need to prepare: this is not a criticism as the issues were not identified until the hearing. There would therefore need to be another hearing and if so, it must make sense that this hearing produces a judgment from a senior judge which will set out the court’s view on these matters and direct the way forward. There will thus be a saving in time and costs which is consistent with the overriding objective in the court process.
  4. So far as the Official Solicitor is concerned, I do not discharge him in any of these cases and I have ordered him by 4pm on 22 July 2015 to file and serve on the parties a statement which shall:

    1 Provide a full and evidence based explanation of why he cannot cope with the number of deprivation of liberty applications in which he is invited to act as litigation friend

    2 Explain in full detail providing evidence where appropriate as to which areas or processes cause him difficulty and why

    3 Inform the court when he expects to be able to cope with deprivation of liberty cases and the likely time scale in which he can start work on a case.

    4. Provide any other information to the court that will assist the court to make decisions in this case regarding the position of the Official Solicitor.

  5. I believe that this information is vital to allow the court to properly consider his position.
  6. I am also anxious that the court can properly evaluate the availability of a litigation friend in all of the cases apart from MOD where one has been appointed. I therefore ordered the Applicants in each case by 4pm on 22 July 2015 to file a statement which shall:

    1 Explain what steps have been taken to find a litigation friend for P

    2 Set out whether IMCAs or other Advocates or resources are available to act as litigation friend or if not, why they are not available.

    3 List all family members who are willing to act as litigation friend.

  7. I was asked in all the cases to approve the deprivation of liberty of P on an interim basis. I declined to do so because it seems to me that the effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment is to demand a higher level of scrutiny than the Re X process demanded and on the information available which is in the form of Re X, I am unable to do so. There are also some cases where the information is incomplete. However, my order provides that applications for interim orders can be renewed at the next hearing.
  8. By setting out the issues as they emerged at the hearing and making the orders I have referred to, my aim is to ensure that matters can be adjudicated upon and resolved as soon as possible.

 

“I know it when I see it” – deprivation of liberty

 

Readers will know that I don’t always agree with Mostyn J on issues of deprivation of liberty, but I think that he makes some very powerful points in this case and he makes them well.

 

Bournemouth Borough Council v PS 2015

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2015/39.html

It involves a 28 year old, who the Court is naming “Ben”  (not his real name) who is on the autistic spectrum and has learning difficulties. The Local Authority who are providing him with care, asked the Court to make a ruling as to (a) whether the care package they were providing amounted to a deprivation of liberty and (b) whether if so, the Court would declare that this was in his best interests.

 

Firstly, Mostyn J wanted to ensure that all of the savings that Ben had accrued during his life by living frugally were not immediately eaten up by lawyers, since he would have to pay for a lawyer if represented through the Official Solicitor.  Mostyn J put different arrangements in place to ensure that Ben’s voice was heard, without draining his savings.  I applaud him for that, and it is a shame, that as he says, this may be one of the last times that this clever solution is useable.

  1. By virtue of COP Rule 2007 rule 141(1), as presently in force, Ben, as a party lacking capacity, is required to have a litigation friend. By virtue of great frugality Ben has accumulated appreciable savings from his benefits. It was foreseeable that were Ben to have a litigation friend who instructed solicitors and counsel, his savings would soon be consumed in legal costs. In my own order of 17 March 2015 I caused a recital to be inserted recording my concern that his means should not be eroded by legal costs. That same order recorded that Ben would be referred to the IMCA service for the appointment of an IMCA. That has duly happened and I have had the benefit of a helpful report from the IMCA, Katie Turner, where Ben’s wishes and feelings are clearly set out.
  2. In Re X (Deprivation of Liberty) No. 2 [2014] EWCOP 37 [2015] 2 FCR 28 Sir James Munby P at paras 12 – 15 and 19 explained that Article 6 of the 1950 Convention required that a protected person should be able to participate in the proceedings properly and satisfactorily with the opportunity of access to the court and of being heard, directly or indirectly, in the proceedings. However, these standards did not necessarily require that the protected person should be a party to the proceedings. There was no obstacle to the protected person participating in the proceedings without being a party.
  3. This ruling has been put on a statutory footing by a new rule 3A to the COP rules. This permits the protected person’s participation to be secured by the appointment of a non-legal representative. However this new rule does not take effect until 1 July 2015, some three weeks hence.
  4. In the circumstances, in what I suppose will be one of the last orders of its kind to be made, I directed that Ben be discharged as a party. I was wholly satisfied that his voice has been fully heard through the IMCA Katie Turner. Further, in relation to the question of deprivation of liberty, all relevant submissions have been fully put on both sides of the argument by counsel for the applicant and the first respondent.

 

One of the real hopes about Cheshire West when it went to the Supreme Court was that there would be a working definition of what ‘deprivation of liberty’ actually amounts to.  I didn’t like the Court of Appeal solution that it could be person specific  (i.e that a person with special needs can have less liberty and more restrictions to his liberty than an average person because his needs require it), but the Supreme Court’s acid-test is not proving much simpler than the old tangled case law.

The facts in this case which might have amounted to a deprivation of liberty were these:-

  1. There are no locks on the doors but there are sensors which would alert a staff member were he to seek to leave, although he has never tried to do so. Mr Morrison explained the situation as follows:

    “The property is such he is in theory able to leave his home on his own volition. Since he has lived at his bungalow he has never left of his own accord or verbally requested to leave without staff. However a door alarm is in place which would alert staff should Ben attempt to leave without staff attendance. If Ben were to leave the property without this having been arranged by staff they would quickly follow him, attempt to engage with him, and monitor him in the community. Ben requires one to one staff support at all times in the community. If he decided he didn’t want to return to his home, staff would firstly verbally encourage him to return, if this proved unsuccessful the Manager of Ben’s care agency would be contacted and they or another staff member would arrive and assist. If this proved unsuccessful further advice, support and attendance by Crisis Team and Social Services for crisis management would be sought and to consider whether a Mental Health Act assessment would be required. If this proved unsuccessful then consideration would be given to the attendance of the Police. Police attendance would be determined by the circumstances and if it is deemed his health and safety and that of others are at risk of harm. At all times staff would remain with Ben.”

  2. In his oral evidence Mr Morrison explained that if all attempts to persuade Ben to return home failed they would ask the police to exercise the powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 to remove Ben to a place of safety. He also explained that consistently with a duty of common humanity if staff were out with Ben and he appeared to be about to step in front of a car they would prevent him from doing so. He stated in his witness statement:

    “Ben needs 1-1 staff support in the community as he lacks road and traffic awareness. Without staff support Ben would not take into account the traffic or road conditions at any given time. If Ben was unescorted in the community it is highly likely he would walk out into the road presenting a high risk of serious harm to him and potentially others. When Ben is escorted in the community he would be guided either verbally or physically and supported to cross a road and staff would intervene should he put himself at risk of significant harm.”

  3. He accepted under cross-examination that such an act of humanity could not amount to a deprivation of liberty, and I emphatically agree.
  4. In his witness statement Mr Morrison dwelt on one particular aspect of necessary supervision. He stated:

    “There is particular risk associated with Ben accessing public toilets in the community as the result of past incidents of Ben engaging in inappropriate sexual activity in public places including toilets. Ben has no understanding of the rights of other members of the public having access to public toilets safely and that any sexual activity in a toilet is illegal. Ben is supported by staff to access public toilets should he need to do so. … He is encouraged to use the locked cubicle of the disabled toilet and staff have a key to access should this be required. When Ben uses a male communal toilet the worker either remains outside the building or goes inside to support Ben. If Ben does not want to leave the toilet a male worker would enter the toilet and encourage him to leave. If a female worker was in attendance they would remain on site and the manager of the care agency would be called for assistance and attendance. A male worker or the intensive support team worker will arrive to support Ben. If this proved unsuccessful the Intensive support team would be called for specialist support and if unsuccessful then Police would be called.”

 

Remember that in deprivation of liberty, there’s a two stage test. Firstly, are the restrictions such as to amount to a deprivation of liberty? And secondly, if so, are those restrictions in the person’s interests?

I think it is really easy to conflate the two. It is really easy to look at this and say “of course he would be stopped if he tried to run into the road” and rather than answering it as a two stage question to simply combine the two, ending up with “someone with Ben’s difficulties would and should be stopped from running into the road, so no deprivation of liberty”  – but that’s a re-set to the Court of Appeal take on Cheshire West.

The comparison is not of Ben with other people with his difficulties and the liberty that they enjoy, but of Ben with other twenty-eight year olds, or Ben with other adults. Other adults are allowed to leave the place where they live, and are not going to be brought back by the police.  (unless their liberty is being deprived as a result of the criminal justice system, or secure accommodation, or the Mental Health Act, or a Deprivation of Liberty under the MCA).  You might consider it to be daft or irresponsible to give Ben the freedom to leave his home and go wherever he wants even if that’s in the middle of the night, but that’s why there’s the second limb – are the restrictions in his best interests?

Whether they are in his best interests or not, doesn’t stop the fact that the restrictions on his life amount to his liberty  being deprived, that’s a deprivation of liberty.

I think there’s also a blurring of whether deprivation of liberty is to be taken with a silent word ‘complete’ in there.  Few would argue that a man locked up in a prison cell, told when to eat and sleep and when he can exercise or go outside is a complete deprivation of liberty, and that what Ben is experiencing is not qualitively the same thing at all. But the Act doesn’t talk about ‘complete’ deprivation, and nor do the Supreme Court.

 

As Mostyn J says, the fuzziness around the edges of deprivation of liberty lead to applications of this kind being made, and as we saw at the outset, they don’t always make things better for Ben and people like him. He could have had all of his savings chewed up by a technical legal debate that he couldn’t care less about, because the chances are whether a Judge decides that his circumstances amount to a deprivation of liberty or not, the Judge is going to go on and say that the restrictions are in his best interests.

 

  1. In her lecture Lady Hale frankly stated that the decision of the Supreme Court of 19 March 2014 has had “alarming practical consequences”. I was told by Miss Davies that in the immediate aftermath of the decision the rate of suspected DOLs cases in this local authority rose by 1000% (it has recently reduced to 800%). This local authority is one of three in Dorset. Statistics from the Department of Health state that in the six month period immediately following the decision 55,000 DOLs applications were made, an eightfold increase on 2013-14 figures.
  2. The resource implications in terms of time and money are staggering. In the Tower Hamlets case I stated at para 60:

    “Notwithstanding the arrival of the streamlined procedure recently promulgated by the Court of Protection Practice Direction 10AA there will still be tens if not hundreds of thousands of such cases and hundreds of thousands if not millions of documents to be processed. The streamlined procedure itself requires the deployment of much man and womanpower in order to identify, monitor and process the cases. Plainly all this will cost huge sums, sums which I would respectfully suggest are better spent on the front line rather than on lawyers.”

  3. I do not criticise this local authority in the slightest for bringing this case. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court local authorities have to err on the side of caution and bring every case, however borderline, before the court. For if they do not, and a case is later found to be one of deprivation of liberty, there may be heavy damages claims (and lawyers’ costs) to pay. I remain of the view that the matter needs to be urgently reconsidered by the Supreme Court.

Although I disagree with Mostyn J about the merits of returning to the Court of Appeal Cheshire West decision, I can’t argue with him on the underlined passage. This is not public money being well spent to make people’s lives better. This is a huge amount of money being expended to achieve very little.

 

Mostyn J’s view on the individual case is that the current circumstances do not amount to a deprivation of liberty and that it would only arise at the point where the police were asked to bring him back

 

I cannot say that I know that Ben is being detained by the state when I look at his position. Far from it. I agree with Mr Mullins that he is not. First, he is not under continuous supervision. He is afforded appreciable privacy. Second, he is free to leave. Were he to do so his carers would seek to persuade him to return but such persuasion would not cross the line into coercion. The deprivation of liberty line would only be crossed if and when the police exercised powers under the Mental Health Act. Were that to happen then a range of reviews and safeguards would become operative. But up to that point Ben is a free man. In my judgment, on the specific facts in play here, the acid test is not met. Ben is not living in a cage, gilded or otherwise.

Famously, a group of professionals working in the field were given case studies about various scenarios and asked to conclude whether each was, or was not, a deprivation of liberty and there was barely any consensus. Have things got better post Cheshire West, or are we now arguing relentlessly about ‘acid tests’ and ‘freedom to leave and ‘continuous supervision”?

 

What I like most about Mostyn J is that you never leave one of his judgments without having learned something new. There are not many people who would produce both poetry and an American case about hard core pornography to prove a point, but Mostyn J is one of them, and he has enriched my day by doing so.  I also believe that this case is now legal authority for both the elephant test and ‘if it looks like a duck’ and should you need to demonstrate those principles, you may pray this case in aid.   [The formulation of the duck principle is expressed in slightly different wording to the traditional use, so beware of a pedant challenging you]

 

  1. The continuing legal controversy shows how difficult it is to pin down a definition of what is a deprivation of liberty (i.e. detention by the state) as opposed to a restriction on movement or nothing beyond humane and empathetic care. It has been said on a number of occasions by the Strasbourg Court that the difference is merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance (see, for example, Stanev v Bulgaria (2012) 55 EHRR 22 at para 115). Ultimately I think that whether a factual situation does or does not satisfy the acid test is likely to be determined by the “I know it when I see it” legal technique. That received its most famous expression from Justice Potter Stewart in the US Supreme Court in Jacobellis v Ohio (1964) 378 U.S. 184, an obscenity case, where he stated “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of hard-core pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.” The technique has been expressed in zoological metaphor. In Cadogan Estates Ltd v Morris [1998] EWCA Civ 1671, a case about a claim for a new lease, Stuart-Smith LJ stated at para 17 “this seems to me to be an application of the well known elephant test. It is difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it”. Another expression is the well known aphorism attributed to the American poet James Whitcomb Riley who wrote “when I see a bird that walks like a duck and swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck”. The case of Stanev was perfectly obviously one of rigorous state detention. In describing Mr Stanev’s circumstances the court referred to the “severity of the regime”. The complainant was held in dire conditions in a remote compound enclosed by a high metal fence. Apart from the administration of medication, no therapeutic activities were organised for residents, who led passive, monotonous lives. The complainant needed prior permission to leave the compound, even to visit the nearby village. He had been denied permission to travel on many occasions by the management. In accordance with a practice with no legal basis, residents who left the premises for longer than the authorised period were treated as fugitives and were searched for by the police. The complainant had in fact been arrested by the police on one occasion.
  2. One does not need to reach for many legal tomes to realise that this was unquestionably a case of deprivation of liberty. The Strasbourg court knew it when it saw it.
  3. In KC v Poland [2014] ECHR 1322 a 72 year old widow, under the apparent care of a social guardian, who had previously been declared to be partially incapacitated, was placed by a court, against her wishes, in a care home on account of chronic schizophrenia and a disorder of the central nervous system. She could ask for permission to leave the care home on her own during the day. When she asked for the court order to be varied to allow her to leave for one hour a day to go to the shops and to allow her to stay in her room all day, this request was declined by the court on the basis that it was provided for by the internal regulations of the care home. The Polish government’s position was that she had never requested permission to leave on her own even for a short period of time. However, and unsurprisingly, the government did not contest that she had been deprived of her liberty under Article 5. It knew it when it saw it. The court, inevitably, agreed. At para 51 it stated:

    “In the present case, although the applicant has been declared only partially incapacitated and although the Government submitted that she could ask to leave the social care home on her own during the day, they did not contest that she had been deprived of her liberty. She was compulsory placed in the social care home, against her will, on the basis of a court decision. Therefore, the responsibility of the authorities for the situation complained of is engaged.”

  4. In my opinion that was a very obvious case of state detention

 

The problem with “I know it when I see it” is that it is going to be completely subjective. As Mostyn J pointed out, if a Local Authority worker or lawyer decides “I know it when I see it” and this isn’t a Deprivation of Liberty, and someone later challenges that it was and was an unlawful one, that then hangs on what a Judge will decide when he or she runs the “I know it when I see it” exercise. If they disagree with the LA, financial consequences will rack up. It is risk and uncertainty, and who wants risk and uncertainty?  (other than casinos and fans of Game of Thrones)