‘A gilded cage is still a cage’ — the Supreme Court determines the question of what is a deprivation of liberty

In its long-awaited judgment, the Supreme Court has given its guidance on the proper test to be applied when deciding whether or not a person is being deprived of their liberty.

As readers may recall, the appeals were in respect of P and Q (previously known as MIG and MEG), and P, MIG and MEG had learning difficulties and had been taken into local authority care. MIG lived with a foster mother and MEG lived in a care home. P had cerebral palsy and Down’s syndrome and lived in a supported living placement. The question was whether any of these individuals were being deprived of their liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. If so, they are entitled to procedural safeguards.

The Supreme Court decided that the factors to be taken into account in determining whether someone’s living situation amounts to a deprivation of liberty does not include: the ‘relative normality’ of the living conditions; their apparent compliance with the arrangements; or the purpose of the arrangements are in the person’s best interests…

Click on the link below to read the rest of the Anthony Collins briefing.

Sign in or Register to continue reading this article

Sign in


It's quick, easy and free!

It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.

Register now

Why register to The Lawyer


Industry insight

In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.


Market intelligence

Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.


Email newsletters

Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.

More relevant to you

To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.

Browse This Firm’s


134 Edmund Street
B3 2ES

Turnover (£m): 14.50
No. of lawyers: 93