Tag Archives: restriction of liberty

Control of mobile phone

Posted on January 31, 2023 by suesspiciousminds

The High Court in this case was being asked to determine whether a situation where a child is in care and the Local Authority want to restrict their access to their mobile phone falls within a DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY or an exercise of parental responsibilty.

I.e is it an action that requires the Court to sanction that restriction, or can a Local Authority do it under section 33 of the Children Act 1989?

Manchester City Council v P (Refusal of restrictions on mobile phone) 2023

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2023/133.html

On the facts of this case, P is 16 and vulnerable. She functions at the age of a 7 year old. She had a lot of periods of going missing and during those periods became the victim of Child Sexual Exploitation and sadly had a history of self-harming.

The Local Authority were asking the Court for permission for an arrangement that allowed them to withhold P’s mobile phone from her from 10pm at night to 8am, and for staff to be able to confiscate her mobile phone if her behaviour was escalating.

The legal debate in the case was as to whether those sort of restrictions on the use of a mobile phone were a deprivation of liberty, which have to be sanctioned by a Court, or whether the Local Authority were exercising Parental Responsibility.

Both the Local Authority and the Guardian in this case were saying that the confiscation of the phone was a restriction of liberty and thus needed Court sanction.

Here is what MacDonald J said about the submissions:-

On behalf of the local authority, Ms Whelan submits that such steps are an integral element of the continuous supervision and control and lack of freedom to leave that marks P out as being deprived of her liberty, having regard to the test articulated in Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] AC 896 in the context of the prior decisions of the ECtHR, including Storck v Germany 43 EHRR 96. Ms Whelan submits that the restrictions on P’s mobile phone (and the associated restrictions concerning her tablet, laptop and access to social media) amount to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5(1) when viewed in their proper context, namely as an essential element of the restrictive regime that deprives P of her liberty, without which the regime restricting P’s liberty could not be effective (Ms Whelan conceded that the authority for the proposition that, cumulatively and in combination, the elements comprising the implementation of a measure can amount to a deprivation of liberty, namely Guzzardi v Italy (1980) 3 EHRR 333, was decided on very different facts).


In the circumstances, Ms Whelan submits that the act of removing or restricting use of her mobile phone, tablet and laptop and restricting her access to social media, constitutes a deprivation of P’s liberty and thus can be authorised by the court under its inherent jurisdiction where such a course is in P’s best interests. In that latter regard, Ms Whelan points to the evidence that, prior to the restrictions concerning her devices being in place, P was speaking to peers who encouraged P to show behaviours such as, shouting at staff, being verbally aggressive and demanding, was sharing her address with her friends, befriending individuals online who she may not know and, on 24 August 2022, speaking to a female who told P tactics for restricting holds designed to prevent her harming herself so she could escape from such holds.


On behalf of P, Miss Swinscoe submits that the argument advanced by the local authority is brought into even sharper relief in circumstances where for P, in common with most children of her generation, a mobile phone is an integral aspect of what she considers to be her liberty. Echoing Ms Whelan’s submission that, for P, her mobile phone is very much an avenue to the outside world, particularly whilst locked behind closed doors, Miss Swinscoe points to the fact that the restrictions about which P is particularly concerned in this case are those placed on her mobile phone and social media access. Within this context, and in circumstances where the ECHR is said to be a ‘living instrument’, Miss Swinscoe submits that the meaning of liberty for a young person today is very different to the meaning of liberty when Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, First Earl of Kilmur, was overseeing the formulation of the ECHR at the end of the Second World War, as Chair of the Council of Europe’s Legal and Administrative Division. In this context, Miss Swinscoe submits that a restriction on the use of P’s mobile phone, tablet and laptop, and the concomitant restriction of her access to social media, fits within Lord Kerr’s formulation of the meaning of liberty in Cheshire West at [76] (emphasis added):
“While there is a subjective element in the exercise of ascertaining whether one’s liberty has been restricted, this is to be determined primarily on an objective basis. Restriction or deprivation of liberty is not solely dependent on the reaction or acquiescence of the person whose liberty has been curtailed. Her or his contentment with the conditions in which she finds herself does not determine whether she is restricted in her liberty. Liberty means the state or condition of being free from external constraint. It is predominantly an objective state. It does not depend on one’s disposition to exploit one’s freedom. Nor is it diminished by one’s lack of capacity.”

In the alternative, both the local authority and the Children’s Guardian contend that if the removal of, or the restriction of the use of, P’s mobile phone, tablet and laptop, and restriction of her access to social media, do not constitute a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5(1), in circumstance where s.8 is not available in respect of a child who is the subject of a care order, the court can in any event, where necessary, authorise such a course under its inherent jurisdiction in the best interests of P.


Ms Whelan did not seek to dispute the proposition that, in principle, it would be open to the local authority to regulate P’s use of her mobile phone by exercising its parental responsibility under the care order pursuant to s.33 of the Children Act 1989, albeit that Ms Whelan expressed some concern, where P is now 16 years old, with respect to resorting to s.33 of the 1989 Act without guidance from the court that this constitutes a legitimate course (in circumstances where the courts have in other cases demarcated the ambit of s.33 of the Act, for example in Re H (A Child)(Parental Responsibility: Vaccination) [2020] EWCA Civ 664).


Ms Whelan submits, however, that where P refuses to co-operate with restrictions on her mobile phone, usually in times of emotional dysregulation where there is a risk that P will become violent, and where the use of her mobile phone is threatening her safety, for example by exposing her to contact with unknown individuals who may pose a risk of child sexual exploitation, it must remain open to the court to make an order under the inherent jurisdiction to remove or restrict the use of P’s devices in her best interests. Ms Whelan drew analogies with other cases in which the court utilises its inherent jurisdiction to impose steps upon a child designed to prevent the child suffering harm, for example were treatment is imposed on children suffering from anorexia nervosa (see Re C (Detention for Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 180). Ms Whelan submits that an order giving effect to the restrictions sought with respect to P’s mobile phone, tablet, laptop and access to social media would, in circumstances where their use presented a risk of significant harm to P, constitute a necessary and proportionate interference with P’s Art 8 rights having regard to the terms of Art 8(2).

On behalf of P, Miss Swinscoe submits that s.33 of the Children Act 1989 would operate to allow the local authority to regulate P’s use of her mobile phone in situations where P is co-operating. Miss Swinscoe points to the fact that whilst P wants to keep her mobile phone, she has been capable of agreeing that it is sensible to hand it to staff. Miss Swinscoe submits, however, that on the evidence before the court, the difficulty is when P becomes dysregulated and the local authority needs to restrict the use of her telephone against her refusal to co-operate in order to protect her safety, where there is clear evidence, Miss Swinscoe submits, that the use of the phone, and her other devices, by P can expose her to a risk of significant harm.

The Court was taken to a decision of the ECHR

In Guzzardi v Italy, a case concerning the conditions of remand on the Italian island of Asinara of a suspected Mafioso, one of the elements of implementation that appears, in combination with others, to have grounded a finding that a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5(1) had occurred was the requirement on the applicant to “inform the supervisory authorities in advance of the telephone number and name of the person telephoned or telephoning each time he wished to make or receive a long-distance call” (the other conditions being, in summary, to reside in a prescribed locality on the island; not to leave that area without notifying the authorities; to report to authorities twice a day when requested to do so; to be law abiding and not give cause for suspicion; not to associate with convicted persons; to obey a curfew; not to carry arms and not to frequent bars or nightclubs or attend public meetings). It is further of note that the restriction regarding telephone use was to prevent contact with other alleged criminals during a period of remand and that the applicant was liable to punishment by arrest if he failed to comply with that obligation. As conceded by the local authority during oral submissions, Guzzardi v Italy thus involved very different facts to those that are before this court.

The Court looked at the relevant statute and case law on deprivation of liberty, section 33 and inherent jurisdiction.

The decision paragraphs are set out at paragraphs 44-69, and are worth reading, but are probably too in-depth for the purposes of this blog.

What we are interested in chiefly is the decision, and it is this:-

In the circumstances, and for the reasons I have given, I refuse to sanction the removal of, or the restriction of the use of P’s mobile phone, tablet and laptop and her access to social media by way of an order authorising the deprivation of her liberty for the purposes of Art 5(1) of the ECHR. I shall instead, make a declaration that it is lawful for the local authority to impose such restrictions in this regard as are recorded in the order in the exercise of the power conferred on it by s.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989. Whilst I am satisfied that, were the evidence to justify it, it would be open to the court to grant an order under its inherent jurisdiction authorising the use of restraint or other force in order remove P’s mobile phone, tablet and laptop from her if she refused to surrender them to confiscation, the evidence currently before the court does not justify such an order being made. Finally, I am satisfied that the other restrictions sought by the local authority do constitute a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Art 5(1) and that it is in P’s best interests to authorise that deprivation of liberty. I shall make an order in the terms of the order appended to this judgment.
Dicey considered the right to liberty to be one of the general principles of the Constitution (see Dicey, A V An Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (1885) 9th edn, MacMillan 1945, p 19). In R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex p Cheblak [1991] 1 WLR 890, Lord Donaldson observed that “We have all been brought up to believe, and do believe, that the liberty of the citizen under the law is the most fundamental of all freedoms.” Within this context, it essential that the State adhere to the rule of law when acting to deprive a child of his or her liberty. This will extend to ensuring that an order lawfully depriving a child of his or her liberty does not act also to deprive that child of other cardinal rights without there being in place proper justification for such interference by reference to the specific content of those other rights.
Each case will fall to be determined on its own facts. However, I venture to suggest that it will not ordinarily be appropriate to authorise restrictions on phones and other electronic devices within a DOLS order authorising the deprivation of the child’s liberty. Further, it is to be anticipated that, in very many cases, any restrictions on the use of phones and other devices that are required to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare will fall properly to be dealt with by the local authority under the power conferred on it by s.33(3)(b) of the Children Act 1989. Only in a small number of cases should it be necessary to have recourse to an order under the inherent jurisdiction, separate from the order authorising the deprivation of liberty, authorising more draconian steps to restrict the child’s use of a mobile phone or other device and only then where there is cogent evidence that the child is likely to suffer significant harm if an order under the inherent jurisdiction in that regard were not to be made.
That is my judgment.

So it is something that the Local Authority can do under section 33 – it will be important as with any decision that the Local Authority make under s33 that they are properly consulting the child and parents, and properly recording their decision and the reasons for it.

4 Comments

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Deprivation mmmmeltdown

Posted on July 13, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

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.

 

6 Comments

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

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

Posted on June 11, 2015 by suesspiciousminds

 

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)

4 Comments

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