‘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.
News from Anthony Collins
Briefings from Anthony Collins
And so it begins — first parts of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 coming into force on 13 May 2014
Provisions of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 are being brought into force in stages by way of ‘Commencement Orders’.
Poor care, unanswered requests for help, enforced incontinence and basic neglect are unfortunately all too common in the care of elderly people.