RSS Feed

Tag Archives: mig and meg

A gilded cage is still a cage (Lady Hale finally wins one!)

Posted on March 19, 2014 by suesspiciousminds

If you do Court of Protection work, you have probably been waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision in Cheshire West and Chester, which is here

http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/19.html

 

 The Supreme Court decided unanimously that P’s liberty was being deprived, and on a 4-3 split that MIG and MEG’s liberty was being deprived. [Yes, a 4-3 split in which Lady Hale finished on the winning side. A 4-3 split does, however indicate that the issues are difficult and that it wasn’t an easy decision or foregone conclusion – they also overturned the Court of Appeal on these two linked cases]

 At the same time, they dismantled the Court of Appeal’s notion that a factual determination of whether someone’s liberty was being deprived was a subjective comparison with what would be reasonable to do for someone of similar characteristics. This is also, as far as I know,  the first finalised deprivation of liberty decision applying to a person living in a foster placement rather than a care home or hospital.

 If you do only care or children work, you’ve probably never heard of Cheshire West, or MIG and MEG, or possibly even DoLs; but just in case you think you can cheerfully ignore all of them, give me one paragraph of your time, to convince you that you ought to learn a bit about this case.

 

The President has issued guidance saying that Deprivation of Liberty applications don’t apply to children under 17 (he is right), and that if there is in a child’s case a deprivation of liberty issue then the mechanism is either detention under the Mental Health Act or an application for a Secure Accommodation Order. The Supreme Court here decided, on a 4-3 split, that what was happening to two young women (formerly children) in a foster care / residential home setting WAS a deprivation of liberty. And therefore, if this was happening to children in other cases, those other cases ought to be the subject of a Secure Accommodation application, or Mental Health Act intervention.

 

Children have historically been the subject of Secure Accommodation applications if they are absconding, or taking deliberate actions, but this case raises that if their liberty is being deprived as a result of their vulnerabilities or medical situation or functioning, that can still equate to a deprivation of liberty which needs to be sanctioned by the Court.

 

That is only the case if it is the State, or a limb of the State that is restricting the child’s liberty.

 

54. Similar constraints would not necessarily amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of article 5 if imposed by parents in the exercise of their ordinary parental responsibilities and outside the legal framework governing state intervention in the lives of children or people who lack the capacity to make their own decisions.

 

 

I come back to this at the very end of the piece, so if you really don’t care about Court of Protection work, you can skip to the bottom.

 

What sort of restrictions were being applied to those young women, and why?  (I’ll call them MIG and MEG, as they were initially dubbed. This is interchanged in the judgment with P and Q, but because the Supreme Court were dealing with two cases interlinked  “P” and “MIG and MEG” / “P and Q”  I think it is confusing to have two separate “P” cases in the same discussion)

 

11. MIG and MEG are sisters who first became the subject of care proceedings under the Children Act 1989 in 2007, when they were aged respectively 16 and 15. MIG has a learning disability at the lower end of the moderate range or the upper end of the severe range. She also has problems with her sight and her hearing. She communicates with difficulty and has limited understanding, spending much of her time listening to music on her iPod. She needs help crossing the road because she is unaware of danger. MEG has a learning disability at the upper end of the moderate range, bordering on the mild. Her communication skills are better than her sister’s and her emotional understanding is quite sophisticated. Nevertheless, she may have autistic traits and she exhibits challenging behaviour.

 

  1. At the time of the final hearing before Parker J in 2010, MIG (then aged 18) was living with a foster mother with whom she had been placed when she was removed from home. She was devoted to her foster mother (whom she regarded as her “mummy”). Her foster mother provided her with intensive support in most aspects of daily living. She had never attempted to leave the home by herself and showed no wish to do so, but if she did, the foster mother would restrain her. She attended a further education unit daily during term time and was taken on trips and holidays by her foster mother. She was not on any medication.
  1. MEG (then aged 17) had originally been placed with a foster carer, who was unable to manage her severe aggressive outbursts, and so she was moved to a residential home. She mourned the loss of that relationship and wished she was still living with her foster carer. The home was an NHS facility, not a care home, for learning disabled adolescents with complex needs. She had occasional outbursts of challenging behaviour towards the other three residents and sometimes required physical restraint. She was also receiving tranquillising medication. Her care needs were met only as a result of continuous supervision and control. She showed no wish to go out on her own and so did not need to be prevented from doing so. She was accompanied by staff whenever she left. She attended the same further education unit as MIG and had a much fuller social life than her sister.

 

 

The original Court of Protection hearing decided that what was happening was NOT a deprivation of liberty, and that any restrictions were for the best interests of MIG and MEG and were justified.

 

The Court of Appeal agreed: [2011] EWCA Civ 190 [2012] Fam 170. Wilson LJ, who gave the leading judgment, laid stress on the “relative normality” of the sisters’ lives, compared with the lives they might have at home with their family (paras 28, 29), together with the absence of any objection to their present accommodation (para 26). Mummery LJ was also impressed with the “greater fulfilment in an environment more free than they had previously had” (para 52). Smith LJ, on the other hand, thought their previous arrangements were not relevant, but stressed that “what may be a deprivation of liberty for one person may not be for another” (para 40).

 

 

That sentence lays at the heart of the two appeals to the Supreme Court.  In the other case, involving an adult named P, the Supreme Court were unanimous that his liberty had been deprived.

 

  1. P was aged 38 at the time of the Court of Protection hearing. He was born with cerebral palsy and Down’s syndrome and required 24 hour care to meet his personal care needs. Until he was 37 he lived with his mother, who was his principal carer, but her health began to deteriorate and the local social services authority concluded that she was no longer able to look after P. In 2009 they obtained orders from the Court of Protection that it was in P’s best interests to live in accommodation arranged by the local authority.
  1. Since November 2009, he had been living in Z house. This was not a care home. It was a spacious bungalow, described by an independent social worker as cosy and with a pleasant atmosphere, and close to P’s family home. At the time of the final hearing, he shared it with two other residents. There were normally two staff on duty during the day and one “waking” member of staff overnight. P received 98 hours additional one to one support each week, to help him to leave the house whenever he chose. He went to a day centre four days a week and a hydrotherapy pool on the fifth. He also went out to a club, the pub and the shops, and saw his mother regularly at the house, the day centre and her home. He could walk short distances but needed a wheel chair to go further. He also required prompting and help with all the activities of daily living, getting about, eating, personal hygiene and continence. He wore continence pads. Because of his history of pulling at these and putting pieces in his mouth, he wore a “body suit” of all-in-one underwear which prevented him getting at the pads. Intervention was also needed to cope with other challenging behaviours which he could exhibit. But he was not on any tranquillising medication.
  1. By the time of the final hearing before Baker J in April 2011, the principal issue was whether these arrangements amounted to a deprivation of liberty. Baker J held that P was completely under the control of the staff at Z House, that he could not “go anywhere, or do anything, without their support and assistance” (para 59). Further, “the steps required to deal with his challenging behaviour lead to a clear conclusion that, looked at overall, P is being deprived of his liberty” (para 60). Nevertheless it was in his best interests for those arrangements to continue: [2011] EWHC 1330 (Fam).

 

 

That decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal

 

The Court of Appeal substituted a declaration that the arrangements did not involve a deprivation of liberty: [2011] EWCA Civ 1257, [2012] PTSR 1447. Munby LJ, who delivered the leading judgment with which Lloyd and Pill LJJ agreed, developed the concept of “relative normality” adopted in P and Q, and considered it appropriate to compare P’s life, not with that which he had enjoyed before when living with his mother, but with that which other people like him, with his disabilities and difficulties, might normally expect to lead. As Lloyd LJ put it, “It is meaningless to look at the circumstances of P in the present case and to compare them with those of a man of the same age but of unimpaired health and capacity. . . . the right comparison is with another person of the same age and characteristics as P” (para 120).

 

 

This concept of ‘relative normality’ or ‘what might be a deprivation of liberty for one person might not be for another’ really lays at the heart of these appeals to the Supreme Court.  In essence, is whether someone is deprived of liberty an OBJECTIVE test, or a SUBJECTIVE test?

 

There is an excellent history of how the “deprivation of liberty” legislation came about in Lady Hale’s judgment, well worth a read.

 

There were a category of people who weren’t detained under the Mental Health Act, or under criminal legislation, but who were being effectively detained because they lacked the capacity to say “I want to leave” or that if they tried to leave weren’t allowed to do so.

 

This came to a head with a man named L, who took his case up to the House of Lords. R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex p L [1999] 1 AC 458.  He had been living with foster carers, became agitated one day at a day care centre and was taken off to hospital, and the carers were not able to get him out. If he HAD been detained under any legislation, then the carers would have had access to legal routes to challenge the decision, but were left in a grey area where they and L seemed to have no rights at all.

 

The majority decision  of the House of Lords was that he had not been detained, and if he had been, it had been under the doctrine of necessity.

 

Lord Steyn disagreed, forcefully and  said

 

  1.  “Counsel for the trust and the Secretary of State argued that L was in truth always free not to go to the hospital and subsequently to leave the hospital. This argument stretches credulity to breaking point. The truth is that for entirely bona fide reasons, conceived in the best interests of L, any possible resistance by him was overcome by sedation, by taking him to hospital and by close supervision of him in hospital and, if L had shown any sign of wanting to leave, he would have been firmly discouraged by staff and, if necessary, physically prevented from doing so. The suggestion that L was free to go was a fairy tale.”

 

When the case went to the European Court of Human Rights, Lord Steyn was shown to be right, and went about his day without egg on his face.

 

  1. The case then went to the European Court of Human Rights as HL v United Kingdom (2004) 40 EHRR 761. The court agreed with Lord Steyn that HL had been deprived of his liberty. It found violations, both of the right to liberty, in article 5(1) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and of the right of a detained person to speedy access to a court which can order his release if his detention is not lawful, in article 5(4). Article 5(1)(e) permits the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind, but that detention has to conform to the Convention standards of legality, and the doctrine of necessity did not provide HL with sufficient protection against arbitrary deprivation of his liberty. The court was struck by the difference between the careful machinery for authorising the detention and treatment of compulsory patients under the Mental Health Act and the complete lack of any such machinery for compliant incapacitated patients such as HL.
  1. Key passages from the judgment are these:

“89. It is not disputed that in order to determine whether there has been a deprivation of liberty, the starting point must be the specific situation of the individual concerned and account must be taken of a whole range of factors arising in a particular case such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question. The distinction between a deprivation of, and restriction upon, liberty is merely one of degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance.

90. . . . . The majority of the House of Lords specifically distinguished actual restraint of a person (which would amount to false imprisonment) and restraint which was conditional upon his seeking to leave (which would not constitute false imprisonment). The court does not consider such a distinction to be of central importance under the Convention. Nor, for the same reason, can the court accept as determinative the fact . . . that the regime applied to the applicant (as a compliant incapacitated patient) did not materially differ from that applied to a person who had the capacity to consent to hospital treatment, neither objecting to their admission to hospital. The court recalls that the right to liberty is too important in a democratic society for a person to lose the benefit of Convention protection for the single reason that he may have given himself up to be taken into detention, especially when it is not disputed that that person is legally incapable of consenting to, or disagreeing with, the proposed action.

91. . . . the court considers the key factor in the present case to be that the health care professionals treating and managing the applicant exercised complete and effective control over his care and movements from the moment he presented acute behavioural problems on 22 July 1997 to the date he was compulsorily detained on 29 October, 1997. . . .

Accordingly, the concrete situation was that the applicant was under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave. Any suggestion to the contrary was, in the Court’s view, fairly described by Lord Steyn as ‘stretching credulity to breaking point’ and as a ‘fairy tale’.”

 

 

As a result, it became necessary for the UK to introduce a statutory mechanism to deal with people like L, and that mechanism was the deprivation of liberty powers within the Mental Capacity Act 2005

 

Deprivation of liberty is not permitted under the Act save in three circumstances: (i) it is authorised by the Court of Protection by an order under section 16(2)(a); (ii) it is authorised under the procedures provided for in Schedule A1, which relates only to deprivations in hospitals and in care homes falling within the meaning of the Care Standards Act 2000 (see Schedule A1, para 178); (iii) it falls within section 4B, which allows deprivation if it is necessary in order to give life sustaining treatment or to prevent a serious deterioration in the person’s condition while a case is pending before the court.

 

Lady Hale goes on to say that the safeguards have the appearance of bewildering complexity   (only the appearance?)  and a few High Court Judges, notably Peter Jackson J have remarked in judgments that the law on deprivation of liberty has become so complex that nobody can understand it, least of all the relatives or carers of the vulnerable people who need to be safeguarded by it.

 

 

Let’s get on with the central argument

 

  1. The first and most fundamental question is whether the concept of physical liberty protected by article 5 is the same for everyone, regardless of whether or not they are mentally or physically disabled. Munby LJ in P’s case appears to have thought that it is not, for he criticised the trial judge for failing to grapple with the

“question whether the limitations and restrictions on P’s life at Z house are anything more than the inevitable corollary of his various disabilities. The truth, surely, is they are not. Because of his disabilities, P is inherently restricted in the kind of life he can lead. P’s life, wherever he may be living, whether at home with his family or in the home of a friend or in somewhere like Z House is, to use Parker J’s phrase…, dictated by his disabilities and difficulties” (para 110).

This view has been confirmed by the rejection in Austin v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 14, para 58, with specific reference to the care and treatment of mentally incapacitated people, of any suggestion by the House of Lords in Austin v Comr of Police of the Metropolis [2009] AC 564 that a beneficial purpose might be relevant (and see also MA v Cyprus (Application No 41872/10), 23 July 2013 and Creanga v Romania (2013) 56 EHRR 11).

  1. The answer given by Mr Richard Gordon QC, who appears instructed by the Official Solicitor on behalf of all three appellants, is that this confuses the concept of deprivation of liberty with the justification for imposing such a deprivation. People who lack the capacity to make (or implement) their own decisions about where to live may justifiably be deprived of their liberty in their own best interests. They may well be a good deal happier and better looked after if they are. But that does not mean that they have not been deprived of their liberty. We should not confuse the question of the quality of the arrangements which have been made with the question of whether these arrangements constitute a deprivation of liberty.

 

 

To be honest, you can just assume that I am saying “hear hear” at most paragraph breaks from here on in. But hell yeah.

 

  1. Allied to the “inevitable corollary” argument it might once have been suggested that a person cannot be deprived of his liberty if he lacks the capacity to understand and object to his situation. But that suggestion was rejected in HL v United Kingdom. In any event, it is quite clear that a person may be deprived of his liberty without knowing it. An unconscious or sleeping person may not know that he has been locked in a cell, but he has still been deprived of his liberty. A mentally disordered person who has been kept in a cupboard under the stairs (a not uncommon occurrence in days gone by) may not appreciate that there is any alternative way to live, but he has still been deprived of his liberty. We do not have any difficulty in recognising these situations as a deprivation of liberty. We should not let the comparative benevolence of the living arrangements with which we are concerned blind us to their essential character if indeed that constitutes a deprivation of liberty.
  1. The whole point about human rights is their universal character. The rights set out in the European Convention are to be guaranteed to “everyone” (article 1). They are premised on the inherent dignity of all human beings whatever their frailty or flaws. The same philosophy underpins the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by the United Kingdom in 2009. Although not directly incorporated into our domestic law, the CRPD is recognised by the Strasbourg court as part of the international law context within which the guarantees of the European Convention are to be interpreted. Thus, for example, in Glor v Switzerland, Application No 13444/04, 30 April 2009, at para 53, the Court reiterated that the Convention must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions and continued:

“It also considers that there is a European and Worldwide consensus on the need to protect people with disabilities from discriminatory treatment (see, for example, Recommendation 1592 (2003) towards full inclusion of people with disabilities, adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 29 January 2003, or the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which entered into force on 3 May 2008).”

 

 

So, there isn’t a different test about whether someone’s liberty is being deprived because of the circumstances of that individual   (that might go to the later question of whether the deprivation is justified or justifiable, but it is a straight factual decision – EVERYONE has the right not to be deprived of their liberty, and you don’t lose that right just because you are autistic or vulnerable in other ways. We certainly don’t compare sedating a vulnerable person and preventing them from leaving with putting a seatbelt on a wriggling child in the back of a car.    (Or at least, we don’t any more, that comparison was made in one of these Deprivation of Liberty – DoLS cases)

 

Second question then, if deprivation of liberty is a factual question, what are the characteristics that decides whether someone is, or is not being deprived of their liberty?

 

The second question, therefore, is what is the essential character of a deprivation of liberty? It is common ground that three components can be derived from Storck, paras 74 and 89, confirmed in Stanev, paras 117 and 120, as follows: (a) the objective component of confinement in a particular restricted place for a not negligible length of time; (b) the subjective component of lack of valid consent; and (c) the attribution of responsibility to the state. Components (b) and (c) are not in issue here, but component (a) is.

 

…

 

  1. In none of the more recent cases was the purpose of the confinement – which may well have been for the benefit of the person confined – considered relevant to whether or not there had been a deprivation of liberty. If the fact that the placement was designed to serve the best interests of the person concerned meant that there could be no deprivation of liberty, then the deprivation of liberty safeguards contained in the Mental Capacity Act would scarcely, if ever, be necessary. As Munby J himself put it in JE v DE [2007] 2 FLR 1150, para 46:

“I have great difficulty in seeing how the question of whether a particular measure amounts to a deprivation of liberty can depend upon whether it is intended to serve or actually serves the interests of the person concerned. For surely this is to confuse . . . two quite separate and distinct questions: Has there been a deprivation of liberty? And, if so, can it be justified?”

 

 

ie, something doesn’t cease to be a deprivation of liberty just because there are good reasons for it  – what you have there is a deprivation of liberty which is justified, and the Court can sanction it.

 

 

  1. In my view, it is axiomatic that people with disabilities, both mental and physical, have the same human rights as the rest of the human race. It may be that those rights have sometimes to be limited or restricted because of their disabilities, but the starting point should be the same as that for everyone else. This flows inexorably from the universal character of human rights, founded on the inherent dignity of all human beings, and is confirmed in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Far from disability entitling the state to deny such people human rights: rather it places upon the state (and upon others) the duty to make reasonable accommodation to cater for the special needs of those with disabilities.
  1. Those rights include the right to physical liberty, which is guaranteed by article 5 of the European Convention. This is not a right to do or to go where one pleases. It is a more focussed right, not to be deprived of that physical liberty. But, as it seems to me, what it means to be deprived of liberty must be the same for everyone, whether or not they have physical or mental disabilities. If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to live in a particular place, subject to constant monitoring and control, only allowed out with close supervision, and unable to move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available, then it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person. The fact that my living arrangements are comfortable, and indeed make my life as enjoyable as it could possibly be, should make no difference. A gilded cage is still a cage.
  1. For that reason, I would reject the “relative normality” approach of the Court of Appeal in the case of P [2012] PTSR 1447, where the life which P was leading was compared with the life which another person with his disabilities might be leading

 

 

 

  1. P, MIG and MEG are, for perfectly understandable reasons, not free to go anywhere without permission and close supervision. So what are the particular features of their “concrete situation” on which we need to focus?
  1. The answer, as it seems to me, lies in those features which have consistently been regarded as “key” in the jurisprudence which started with HL v United Kingdom 40 EHRR 761: that the person concerned “was under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave” (para 91). I would not go so far as Mr Gordon, who argues that the supervision and control is relevant only insofar as it demonstrates that the person is not free to leave. A person might be under constant supervision and control but still be free to leave should he express the desire so to do. Conversely, it is possible to imagine situations in which a person is not free to leave but is not under such continuous supervision and control as to lead to the conclusion that he was deprived of his liberty. Indeed, that could be the explanation for the doubts expressed in Haidn v Germany.
  1. The National Autistic Society and Mind, in their helpful intervention, list the factors which each of them has developed as indicators of when there is a deprivation of liberty. Each list is clearly directed towards the test indicated above. But the charities do not suggest that this court should lay down a prescriptive list of criteria. Rather, we should indicate the test and those factors which are not relevant. Thus, they suggest, the person’s compliance or lack of objection is not relevant; the relative normality of the placement (whatever the comparison made) is not relevant; and the reason or purpose behind a particular placement is also not relevant. For the reasons given above, I agree with that approach

 

 

 

You are looking for  – is a person under continuous supervision and control, are they free to leave.

 

It is NOT relevant that the person is complying or not objecting.

 

It is NOT relevant that a person in similar circumstances to this person would have the same sort of placement or restrictions

 

It is NOT relevant that the reason for the restrictions is to protect the person or that it is for their own good   (that comes into the second stage – is the deprivation justifiable)

 

 

54. If the acid test is whether a person is under the complete supervision and control of those caring for her and is not free to leave the place where she lives, then the truth is that both MIG and MEG are being deprived of their liberty. Furthermore, that deprivation is the responsibility of the state. Similar constraints would not necessarily amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purpose of article 5 if imposed by parents in the exercise of their ordinary parental responsibilities and outside the legal framework governing state intervention in the lives of children or people who lack the capacity to make their own decisions.

 

And on P

 

  1. In the case of P, the Court of Appeal should not have set aside the decision of the judge for the reasons they gave. Does it follow that the decision of the judge should be restored? In my view it does. In paragraph 46 of his judgment, he correctly directed himself as to the three components of a deprivation of liberty derived from Storck; he reminded himself that the distinction between a deprivation of and a restriction of liberty is one of degree or intensity rather than nature or substance; and he held that “a key factor is whether the person is, or is not, free to leave. This may be tested by determining whether those treating and managing the patient exercise complete and effective control of the person’s care and movements” (para 46(5)). It is true that, in paragraph 48, he summarised the further guidance given by the Court of Appeal in P and Q, including the relevance of an absence of objection and the relative normality of the person’s life, which in my view are not relevant factors. But when he considered the circumstances of P’s life at the Z house, he remarked (para 58) upon the very great care taken by the local authority and the staff of Z House to ensure that P’s life was as normal as possible, but continued (para 59):

“On the other hand, his life is completely under the control of members of staff at Z House. He cannot go anywhere or do anything without their support and assistance. More specifically, his occasionally aggressive behaviour, and his worrying habit of touching and eating his continence pads, require a range of measures, including at time physical restraint, and, when necessary, the intrusive procedure of inserting fingers into his mouth whilst he is being restrained.”

In my view, in substance the judge was applying the right test, derived from HL v United Kingdom, and his conclusion that “looked at overall, P is being deprived of his liberty” (para 60) should be restored.

 

 

And in conclusion Lady Hale says

 

Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P, MIG and MEG, I believe that we should err on the side of caution in deciding what constitutes a deprivation of liberty in their case. They need a periodic independent check on whether the arrangements made for them are in their best interests. Such checks need not be as elaborate as those currently provided for in the Court of Protection or in the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (which could in due course be simplified and extended to placements outside hospitals and care homes). Nor should we regard the need for such checks as in any way stigmatising of them or of their carers. Rather, they are a recognition of their equal dignity and status as human beings like the rest of us.

 

 

 

As I said at the outset, the Supreme Court was unanimous that P’s liberty had been deprived, but were 4-3 split on MIG and MEG, the majority agreeing with Lady Hale that their liberty had been deprived.

 

 

The dissenting views were in very broad terms based on agreement with this proposition by Parker J in the original decision on MIG and MEG

 

  1. 107.                        “225. Freedom to leave has to be assessed against the background that neither wants to leave their respective homes, there is no alternative home save that of their mother where neither wishes to live, and neither appears to have the capacity to conceptualise any alternative unfamiliar environment. I have been told and I accept that if the local authority felt that either was actively unhappy where they were placed, then other arrangements would be made.

226. In my view it is necessary to analyse what specific measures or restraints are in fact required. …”

 

And that

 

nobody using ordinary language would describe people living happily in a domestic setting as being deprived of their liberty. I am not persuaded that the ECtHR would so hold. A more measured conclusion would be that MIG’s liberty was interfered with and not that she had been deprived of her liberty. The same is true of MEG.

 

 

 

I am aware, in conclusion, that I have devoted far more time to the majority judgment and lead judgment of Lady Hale than to the dissent; an analysis of the nuances between them is probably beyond the scope of this blog and I’ll leave it to specialists like Lucy Series over at The Small Places blog. 

 

 

[Lucy hasn’t written on it yet, but can I refer you to this brilliant, stirring and beautiful piece on the House of Lords dissection of the MCA  http://thesmallplaces.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/democracy-in-action/

 

I wish that I could write with an ounce of Lucy’s passion – she’s the sort of writer that makes me want to man the barricades. If, as the House of Lords hint, there should be some sort of monitoring/oversight/scrutiny/guidance body other than the Courts overseeing the MCA, Lucy should be on it ]

 

Plus, as I have not even attempted to disguise during this piece, I wholly agree with Lady Hale’s determination.

 

It may well be that there are far more people than the current 11,800 DoLs applications as a result of this decision. Well, so be it. For me, that is more people whose liberty is being deprived having the opportunity to challenge and test that before the Courts, rather than workers on the ground deciding that they aren’t being deprived of their liberty because the restrictions are right for ‘that sort of person’ and ‘for their own good’

 

Maybe the number of applications will break the system. Well, then the system needs to be broken and rebuilt.  Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P and MIG and MEG, we should err on the side of extreme caution when protecting their rights.

 

 

As to the children and secure accommodation orders approach, it might be worth noting Lord Kerr’s observations (this one of the majority judgments)

 

  1. The question whether one is restricted (as a matter of actuality) is determined by comparing the extent of your actual freedom with someone of your age and station whose freedom is not limited. Thus a teenager of the same age and familial background as MIG and MEG is the relevant comparator for them. If one compares their state with a person of similar age and full capacity it is clear that their liberty is in fact circumscribed. They may not be conscious, much less resentful, of the constraint but, objectively, limitations on their freedom are in place.
  1. All children are (or should be) subject to some level of restraint. This adjusts with their maturation and change in circumstances. If MIG and MEG had the same freedom from constraint as would any child or young person of similar age, their liberty would not be restricted, whatever their level of disability. As a matter of objective fact, however, constraints beyond those which apply to young people of full ability are – and have to be – applied to them. There is therefore a restriction of liberty in their cases. Because the restriction of liberty is – and must remain – a constant feature of their lives, the restriction amounts to a deprivation of liberty.
  1. Very young children, of course, because of their youth and dependence on others, have – an objectively ascertainable – curtailment of their liberty but this is a condition common to all children of tender age.  There is no question, therefore, of suggesting that infant children are deprived of their liberty in the normal family setting.  A comparator for a young child is not a fully matured adult, or even a partly mature adolescent.  While they were very young, therefore, MIG and MEG’s liberty was not restricted.  It is because they can – and must – now be compared to children of their own age and relative maturity who are free from disability and who have access (whether they have recourse to that or not) to a range of freedoms which MIG and MEG cannot have resort to that MIG and MEG are deprived of liberty.

 

So in order to ascertain whether a deprivation of liberty is occurring you are looking at whether the restrictions being put on THIS child are comparable to that of another child of similar age  – of course carers and parents put different restrictions on an 8 year old than a 15 year old, and it is nonsense to say that the 8 year old’s liberty is being deprived as a result of not having the same freedoms as a 15 year old.  But if a particular 15 year old is having restrictions that are over and above what an average 15 year old might be allowed, then the question might arise.  It is important to note that whilst Lord Kerr is tolerating a degree of subjectivity, he is not saying that the test is completely subjective – the comparator is an average child of this age, not a child who has the same sort of problems, or behaviours, or vulnerabilities of this child.

 

 

For example

 

Most 14 year olds wouldn’t be allowed to leave their home at 2.00am, so a foster carer doing the same won’t be depriving the child of their liberty.

 

Most 14 year olds have had the experience of being ‘grounded’ for bad behaviour and having a period of time in which they aren’t able to go out with their friends, or use the computer or similar, so a foster carer doing the same isn’t depriving a child of their liberty

 

However, most 14 year olds aren’t told that they can never leave the home except under adult supervision, or have their door locked at night, so that would be a deprivation of liberty if it happened to a child in foster care.

8 Comments

Posted in case law, court of protection and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

“A labyrinth of DoLs”

Posted on April 16, 2012 by suesspiciousminds

 An imaginary judgment

 

(I am extremely grateful in the construction of the legal framework of this judgment to Lord Justice Wilson’s careful and precise analysis of the law in RE P and Q 2010 – often known as the MIG and MEG case. Almost everything in this that you think is well-written was written by Lord Justice Wilson, and everything shabby and feeble is my own)

 

 The Court is today dealing with an application by those representing the parents of a young man named L, to the effect that his accommodation in the Minos Taurus care facility amounts to a Deprivation of Liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and that as this has been done without authority, the facility, and the Local Authority who placed him there are in breach of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in that his liberty is being restricted without lawful excuse.

 

The Local Authority and the owners of Minos Taurus – Mr Ian K Harris and his dad, Ellis, contend that there is no restriction on L’s liberty and that there is an open door that L can leave by at any time and a path that can be followed to the outside world should he wish to leave at any time; and that thus L is effectively remaining in the placement of his own wish.

 

Matters are complicated when the Court looks, as I am strenuously urged to, beyond the face value of that statement and at the reality of the layout of the Minos Taurus care home. The care home has a front door, which is locked at all times. Staff members have a key, and visitors will be admitted, but residents are not able to freely enter or exit through that door. That much is common ground between the parties.

 

The rear door is indeed, unlocked at all times and any resident is free to go through it and staff would not attempt to prevent or discourage a resident from doing so.

However, emerging from that back door does not grant the resident immediate access to the public highway or the world at large, but rather to the grounds of the Minos Taurus home, which are over two acres in size. I have been shown aerial photography taken by the applicants of those grounds and it is plain that what has been constructed is an array of hedges, constructed in such a way that only one path moves from the entrance to the exit.

The hedges themselves are impenetrable, and could not be scaled without considerable difficulty, being both prickly and twelve feet in height.

In short, what lies at the rear of Minos Taurus can best be described as a labyrinth. The entrance to this labyrinth is the back door of the physical Minos Taurus building and the exit is to the public footpath that runs outside the rear of the property. There is no physical gate, or barrier to that exit.

 Minos Taurus therefore contend that L, or any other resident, would simply have to walk a path between the entrance and the exit. If they walked that path, which they are free to do at any time of the day or night, nothing would prevent them from reaching the footpath and thus leaving the land owned by Minos Taurus. Thus, there is no deprivation of liberty.

I note that they contend that describing their grounds as a labyrinth is pejorative and that it is, in reality ‘a restful and soothing arrangement of hedges in a classical form’.

 They are to be admired for their chutzpah in that submission, but I find that quite the simplest of this entire tangled and byzantine case to unpick. The grounds are laid out in the form of a maze (I note in passing that whilst I may, as counsel did throughout, flit between the term maze and labyrinth, that what we are dealing with here is a maze – since it has an entrance and exit and branching paths, whereas a labyrinth leads to the centre and is not intended to be difficult or puzzling to navigate).

I am satisfied that the applicant’s claim that the grounds of Minos Taurus are intentionally laid out as a maze, and that it is not a merely coincidental happenstance or an intention to create a geometrically and horticulturally pleasing arrangement which simply happened to also take the form of a maze. Nor is it a homage to Hampden Court, or the many other notable horticultural efforts that are set out in glossy photographs in Section J of the bundle. Whilst those photographs have indeed been soothing to consider and admire, they have not assisted me as Minos Taurus had hoped they might.

The grounds are laid out in the form of a maze and this has been a deliberate intention on the part of Minos Taurus.

L’s family contend, that L, being a person who lacks capacity to make decisions in his own regard, is incapable of navigating a maze or labyrinth, and that whilst theoretically, he is free to leave at any time, in reality he is imprisoned by this maze and his liberty is just as restricted as if he were blocked by a locked and barred door.

They state that it is of significance that their Freedom of Information request gleaned that :-

 (a) Since the construction of the maze, no member of staff has chosen to enter by the back door rather than the front

(b) Since the construction of the maze, no resident has left the home by way of the back door.

(c) All residents who have left the home have done so by the front door, which had been unlocked for them by staff.

Turning now to the law, which one might rightly muse is almost as impenetrable as the hedge and with as many twists and turns as the construction in question. The issue whether the arrangements for L amount to a deprivation of his liberty and whether the arrangements engage Article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950.

Article 5 provides: “1 Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law – … (e) the lawful detention … of persons of unsound mind …; … 4 Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by … detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.”

 The practical effect of a conclusion that the arrangements for L amount to a deprivation of his liberty is to be found in the valuable right provided by paragraph 4 of Article 5. For in that event his right would be to take court proceedings for a decision in relation to the lawfulness of their detention The paragraph would impose a duty on the court itself periodically, again probably at least annually, to review the continued necessity for the arrangements which deprive him of his liberty, albeit perhaps only on paper unless requested otherwise: see Re BJ (Incapacitated Adult) [2009] EWHC 3310 (Fam), [2010] 1 FLR 1373, at [26] – [28]. The court’s review would probably again require independent representation of him.

It is not, therefore, a merely academic question, but one which goes to the heart of L’s rights. I shall not go into details of the nature of L’s problems, suffice to say that his day to day functioning is approximately that of a five year old child and that it is beyond dispute and accepted by all parties to these proceedings that he lacks capacity to make decisions for all matters relevant to these proceedings pursuant to section 2 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. There is expert evidence, undisputed, to that effect.

 L came into the Minos Taurus care home as a voluntary patient, his family having brought him there for a period of respite. They say that they had no idea that having taken him there, they did not have the power to discharge him. Although he is free to leave whenever he wishes, he is, they say, prevented from doing so by the practical barriers that have been put in place.

As indicated earlier, Minos Taurus and the Local Authority who are assisting in the funding of L’s placement there, and supporting his remaining in that placement, are of the view that L can leave the placement at any time and that there is a route or path which can be followed which is completely unimpeded to L, if he chose to follow it. Minos Taurus have indicated that if the Local Authority determined that L should leave the home by the front door, or were to cease funding the placement, they would facilitate L leaving by the front door.

The European Court of Human Rights (“the ECtHR”) has made clear that a deprivation of liberty has three elements:

(a) “the objective element of a person’s confinement to a certain limited place for a not negligible length of time”: Storck v. Germany (2005) 43 EHRR 96, at [74];

(b) the “additional subjective element [that] they have not validly consented to the confinement in question”: the Storck case, also at [74]; and

 (c) the confinement must be “imputable to the State”: the Storck case, at [89].

That is not disputed by any of the parties. The critical issue that is in dispute is whether, as a matter of fact, L is confined to a certain limited place, or whether he is not. I am invited by L’s family to reword the test as being whether L is confined to a certain limited place or whether he is free to come and go as he chooses, but I decline to replace the construction that has been carefully arrived at by the ECtHR in Storck with a different formulation. It is not incumbent on the State to demonstrate that L is free to come and go as he chooses, but to refute the claim that he is confined to a certain limited place for a not negligible length of time. The classic exposition of the nature of the enquiry into the objective element, on which no doubt has been cast for 30 years, is that of the ECtHR in Guzzardi v. Italy (1981) EHRR 333, at [92] – [93], as follows: “… the starting point must be his concrete situation and account must be taken of a whole range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question … The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is nonetheless merely one of degree or intensity, and not one of nature or substance … the process of classification into one or other of these categories sometimes proves to be no easy task in that some borderline cases are a matter of pure opinion …”

These are prescient words indeed and ones that have survived the last three decades better than tastes in literature, music, art or fashion. It certainly is no easy task to determine the clear bright line that separates a restriction of liberty from a deprivation of liberty. One is reminded of the philosophical debate about a pile of stones, and one stone being removed at a time, and at what point there ceases to be a pile.

To the layperson it would seem a relatively easy task to determine whether objectively someone is deprived of their liberty. They would probably begin with asking the question “What’s stopping them from leaving?”  , but there is no question no matter how simple or blindingly obvious the answer that cannot be obfuscated by the combined efforts of Parliament, the judiciary and the focussed minds of the Bar.

In relation to the objective element there are two more recent decisions of the ECtHR of great importance.

The first decision is HL v. UK (2005) 81 BMLR 131;  Mr HL was an incapable 48-year-old man who was autistic, unable to speak and had a history of self-harm. For 30 years prior to 1994 he had been an inpatient in Bournewood Hospital; and for the final seven of them he had been in its Intensive Behavioural Unit. Then, in 1994, without being formally discharged, he was moved into the home of paid carers. In July 1997, following an incident of self-harm at a day-care centre, he was readmitted to the unit at the hospital and he remained there for four months, whereupon he was returned to the carers. For the first three of those months he was an informal patient, i.e. not compulsorily detained there under the Mental Health Act 1983; and such was the period during which, so the ECtHR held, he had been deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5. Thus did the court identify “the Bournewood gap” in our legal framework for control over the deprivation of liberty in the case of an incapable person effected otherwise than pursuant to the Act of 1983; and Parliament sought to fill the gap by making insertions into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 which, by s.4A(5) and Schedule A1, set up a framework for such control in the case of a person receiving care or treatment in a hospital or a care home and which, by s.4A(1) and (3), rendered any other such deprivation lawful only if made pursuant to a court order that such was in her (or his) best interests. In its submissions in the case of HL the UK government had laid considerable emphasis on the fact that Mr HL had been compliant with his return to live in the unit and had never attempted to leave it nor expressed the wish to do so. But the court held, at [90], that, in that Mr HL was incapable, his compliance was not of central importance. The fact was that, irrespective of whether his ward was locked or lockable, he had not been free to leave the unit: [91] and [92]. The court said, at [91]: “the Court considers the key factor in the present case to be that the health care professionals treating and managing [Mr HL] exercised complete and effective control over his care and movements from 22 July 1997, when he presented acute behavioural problems, to 29 October 1997, when he was compulsorily detained.”

 

The second decision is the case of Storck cited above. A young woman aged 18 was placed by her father in a locked ward of a private psychiatric clinic and she remained there for 20 months. Very strong medication was administered to her, at times by force. On a number of occasions she attempted to flee from the clinic and was prevented from doing so by being fettered. Once she succeeded in escaping and the police forcibly returned her there. She was unable to maintain regular social contact with persons outside the clinic. The ECtHR held that all three elements of a deprivation of liberty were present and that, in respect of the objective element, the case was a fortiori that of HL.

 

In the case of RE P (known as MIG) and Q (known as MEG) 2010, the Court of Appeal determined that there were some important factors to be considered when determining whether there was objectively a deprivation of liberty.

 1. A person’s happiness, as such, is not relevant in determining whether there has been a deprivation of liberty.

 2. However, an objection is relevant, even where a person lacks capacity. If they do not want to be in a place and they object, there will be conflict. At the very least there will be arguments and they will suffer the stress of having their argument overruled. This would be a factor which could be properly taken into account when determining if a person’s liberty were being deprived, rather than restricted.

3. From the relevance of objections and also of the lack of them, it is logical to move to the relevance of medication and also of the lack of it . The administration to a person of medication, at any rate of antipsychotic drugs and other tranquilisers, is always a pointer towards the existence of the objective element: for it suppresses her liberty to express herself as she would otherwise wish. Indeed, if the administration of it is attended by force, its relevance is increased. Furthermore, in that objections may be highly relevant, medication which has the effect of suppressing them may be relevant to an equally high degree. But again, conversely, the absence of medication is a pointer in the other direction.

4. The purpose of the arrangements under scrutiny can be relevant.

 5. the relative normality, or otherwise of the arrangements under scrutiny can be relevant

 6. an enquiry into the residential arrangements and the degree of outside social contact. “Whether a certain situation constitutes a deprivation of liberty may depend on the living conditions of the person concerned and the degree of freedom he or she enjoyed otherwise”: “The European System for the Protection of Human Rights,” by Macdonald, Matscher and Petzold, 1993, 289.

I propose to analyse the case on the basis of those principles, to form an objective view of whether, as a preliminary issue the first of the three limbs of Starck are made out. Has there been the objective element of a person’s confinement to a certain limited place for a not negligible length of time ?

 

I am however, before conducting that exercise, mindful of the following authorities , and indeed that the Court of Appeal in Re P and Q determined that there was NO deprivation of liberty in that case and this body of caselaw strives to convince me that there is far more to the objective question that considering the commonsense formulation that an ordinary person would use “What’s stopping them from leaving?” , in that these cases illustrate that locked doors, tranquiliser medication and physical restraint can all, in certain circumstances be deployed to stop a person leaving somewhere without his liberty being deprived. 

  (I wonder, in an idle moment, whether a Judge in a civil trial to determine a tort of False Imprisonment, would wrestle for even a moment with the issue of whether someone who was drugged, locked up or sat on was being prevented from leaving, but that is by the by)

 

RE  C (BY THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR) v (1) BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN BOROUGH COUNCIL (2) A CARE HOME (3) BLACKBURN WITH DARWEN TEACHING CARE TRUST (2011) [2011] EWHC 3321 (Fam) Where an individual who was living in a care home with locked doors was not considered by the High Court to be deprived of his liberty.

 

The Honourable Mr Justice Peter Jackson commented here, and they are sentiments which I would not only echo, but shout into the Grand Canyon via a megaphone and perhaps even go so far as to embark upon a process of chiselling these words into Mount Rushmore:- 

 It is a truly unhappy state of affairs that the law governing the fundamental rights and welfare of incapacitated people should be so complex. As this case shows, its intricacies challenge the understanding of professionals working in the field and are completely inaccessible to those for whose benefit the legislation has been devised, including those with a relatively high level of understanding, such as Mr C. This judgment, while keeping citation from statute, regulation, codes of practice and reported cases to the necessary minimum, still remains more focused on technical issues than I would like

Bravo.

 I wish that my own meagre contribution to the law in this regard could add illumination, but I fear it is likely to do little other than complicate matters still further.

 I am also referred to the case of CHESHIRE WEST & CHESTER COUNCIL v P (BY HIS LITIGATION FRIEND THE OFFICIAL SOLICITOR) (2011) [2011] EWCA Civ 1257 In which the Court of Appeal determined that restrictive measures taken in relation to a man who lacked capacity did not amount to a deprivation of his liberty.

HELD: (1) After reviewing the relevant authorities, the court identified the following factors which were likely to be significant in the type of deprivation of liberty cases coming before the Court of Protection: (a) the starting point was the “concrete situation”, taking account of a range of criteria such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question (see paras 32-33, 188, 102 of judgment); (b) deprivation of liberty had to be distinguished from restraint because restraint alone was not deprivation of liberty (paras 23, 102); (c) account had to be taken of the individual’s whole situation and context was crucial, Guzzardi v Italy (A/39) (1981) 3 E.H.R.R. 333 and Engel v Netherlands (A/22) (1979-80) 1 E.H.R.R. 647 applied, Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ [2007] UKHL 45, [2008] 1 A.C. 385 followed (paras 32-35, 102); (d) mere lack of capacity to consent to living arrangements could not in itself create a deprivation of liberty and the fact that a domestic setting could involve a deprivation of liberty did not mean that it often would, Surrey CC v CA [2010] EWHC 785 (Fam), [2011] M.H.L.R. 108 approved (paras 27-28, 41-59, 102-103); (e) it was legitimate to have regard both to the objective “reason” for a placement and treatment and also the objective “purpose”, Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 A.C. 564 followed (paras 60-75, 102); (f) subjective motives or intentions had only limited relevance since an improper motive or intention might have the effect that what would otherwise not be a deprivation of liberty was, for that very reason, a deprivation whilst a good motive or intention could not render innocuous what would otherwise be a deprivation of liberty (paras 74-77, 102); (g) it was always relevant to evaluate and assess the ‘relative normality’ of the situation, Secretary of State for the Home Department v JJ and others followed (paras 78-97, 102); (h) the assessment had to take account of the particular capabilities of the person concerned since what might be a deprivation of liberty for one person may not be for another (paras 92, 97, 102); (i) in most contexts the relevant comparator was the ordinary able bodied adult but not in the kind of cases that came before the Family Division and the Court of Protection, concerning children and adults with disabilities whose lives were dictated by their own cognitive and other limitations (paras 86, 102); (j) in such cases, the comparator was an adult of similar age with the same capabilities as the adult concerned, affected by the same condition or suffering the same inherent mental and physical disabilities and limitations. In the case of a child, the comparator was a child of the same age and development, Surrey CC v CA [2011] EWCA Civ 190, [2011] 2 F.L.R. 583 applied (paras 86-97, 102). (2) In the instant case, the judge had not compared P’s situation with the kind of life he would have been leading as someone with his disabilities and difficulties in a normal family setting. There was nothing to show that the life he was living there was significantly different from the kind of life that anyone with those difficulties could normally expect to lead, whatever kind of setting they were living in. On the contrary, there was a strong degree of normality in his life, assessed by reference to the relevant comparator (paras 105-112). The judge’s reasoning in relation to the measures applied to P from time to time was equally problematic. The measures involved the kind of occasional restraint that anyone caring for P in any setting would have to adopt from time to time. The finger sweep was obviously intrusive but had to be looked at in context. It was little different from what any properly attentive parent would do if a young child was chewing something unpleasant or potentially harmful. It involved a degree of restraint but that was far removed from anything approaching a deprivation of liberty. P’s care plan did not involve a deprivation of his liberty (paras 113-117).

 

The Minos Taurus unit, and the Local Authority urge that I exercise caution before determining that the arrangements for L amount to a deprivation of his liberty. They contend that :-

1. There is an unlocked door through which L may leave at any time.

2. L’s needs are being met in the unit

3. L is not making attempts to leave through the unlocked door. Setting aside whether he could navigate the maze (about which they make no concessions) he has not attempted to step out of the physical building and into the grounds at the rear of the building.

 4. L does attend social functions and some educational/play facilities outside of the unit and has a quality of life comparable to that which persisted before his admission 

5. L is not on any medication

6. L has not been the subject of any restraint

7. There are no entries in any of the records of L objecting to the placement, or of wishing to leave. It is plain that he is asking for his family and making positive comments about them and his time with them.

On the evidence that has been placed before me, there is nothing to counteract these facts and I have to find that these contentions are all made out.

 

Set against that,  I am satisfied that the purpose of the arrangements, in having a maze built in the grounds of the building and there being an open door leading into that maze is in order to provide the illusion of a person being free to leave. This illusion does not sit well with me, leaving as it does, an indelible impression of an attempt to circumvent the need to make the application to detain a person using the Mental Capacity Act, which application could be challenged.

I am also satisfied that none of the residents at Minos Taurus, who are there on a “voluntary” basis are capable of negotiating or navigating that maze successfully and that within a few short minutes of being in the maze unaccompanied they would become fearful, lost and no doubt calling for staff to help them. That is not an indication of them consenting to be in the home or wishing to remain there, but the reality of them being simply incapable of negotiating the obstacle that has been placed in their path by Mr Ian K Harris and his father, Ellis.

This, however, is the only matter that I can set against the 7 positive factors listed above to indicate that there might be a degree of deprivation of liberty rather than restriction of it.  I do not feel able to imbue that matter, grave as it is, with sufficient weight to tip the scales against those 7 positive factors.

Much as this conclusion might leave a bad taste in my mouth, the construction of the maze being a clear device to circumvent suggestion that L and his fellow residents are deprived of their liberty, I am in difficulties on the authorities to reach the objective conclusion that L’s family invite me to make. Given that some of the authorities find that locked doors and physical restraint need not amount to an objective deprivation of liberty, and that those factors are not present in this case, I am driven by the authorities and an analysis of the law to find that there is no such deprivation of liberty.

However, my conclusion is that L would like to have a member of his family to visit him in the unit and to walk with him in the grounds. Should they happen to wish to wander in the maze, and should they happen to find their way out (perhaps with the benefit of the aerial photography that can be found at G42 of the Court bundle) then that might be a coincident outcome.

If the unit were to refuse to allow L to be visited by his family and to walk with them in the grounds, or to refuse to allow L to leave by the exit of the maze, should he find his way there, then I would be minded to find that a deprivation of liberty had occurred at that point. Indeed, I determine that if they were minded to do so, they should make the relevant application to give them authority to deprive L of his liberty to walk in the garden with his family.

 The same would be true of any of the other residents of Minos Taurus, and I am happy for this judgment to be published and made available to the family members of all other residents of the unit.

I apologise that my solution and judgment in this case is more akin to the Gordian Knot than Ariadne’s ball of thread, but I trust that it will meet with some satisfaction in at least some of the participants of this fascinating piece of litigation.

3 Comments

Posted in adult social care, imaginary judgment and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.