Our website is set to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click "Continue" or simply continue browsing. Continue.

Court of Protection Practice and Procedure Conference 2016

A comprehensive guide to best practice and current thinking

Jordan Publishing are pleased to be sponsoring the STEP Annual Tax Conference 2016

Come and visit our stand in Bristol and London.

Private Client Law

24 MAR 2015

The (not so?) great confinement (£)

The (not so?) great confinement (£)
Neil Allen, Barrister, 39 Essex Street and Lecturer, University of Manchester

As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in P (By His Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another; P and Q (By Their Litigation Friend the Official Solicitor) v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19, [2014] COPLR 313 (‘Cheshire West’), we are presently witnessing something very unique, something historical. And that is the mass authorisation of deprivation of liberty of a significant proportion of the disabled population. Tens of millions of pounds are being diverted from health and social care budgets to authorise deprivations of liberty on an industrial scale. Up and down the country – as Art 5 ECHR takes hold – an additional layer of legal procedures are now required to oversee health and social care. We are in the throes of what might be called a great confinement.

Whether the Supreme Court was right to lower the threshold for deprivation of liberty beyond that presently recognised by the European Court of Human Rights remains to be seen. No one will ultimately know unless and until Strasbourg is presented with a similar set of facts. This article does not question the policy behind the decision. No one would argue against the need for vulnerable people to have independent periodic checks on their welfare. Instead, and drawing upon an historical parallel, this article calls into question whether the right to liberty is the most effective means of achieving that policy aim. After all, it did nothing to prevent the torture of Winterbourne View. The legal landscape may well look very different in years to come, following the Law Commission’s intervention. But, in the meanwhile, the consequences of the acid test must be addressed. And there are lessons to be learnt from history to avoid what might otherwise turn out to be a not-so-great confinement.

The full version of this article appears in issue 1 of 2015 of Elder Law Journal.

If you subscribe to the journal please click here to read the full article.

For details on how you can subscribe to Elder Law Journal or for any offers, please contact a member of our sales team: Tel 0117 918 1555, or email: sales.manager@jordanpublishing.co.uk

Capacity to Change

Understanding and Assessing a Parent's Capacity to Change within the Timescales of the Child

This title brings together chapters commissioned specifically for the audience in the social...

More Info from £49.50
Available in Family Law Online

Elderly People and the Law

This book provides a narrative explanation of the many areas of law that impact on elderly clients

More Info from £49.50
Available in Private Client Law Online
Subscribe to our newsletters