‘An error in someone’s name on a form did not invalidate a standard authorisation, the Court of Protection has decided.’
Local Government Lawyer, 10th June 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The Court of Protection has found that if a local authority does not apply for an order under the inherent jurisdiction, a parent can challenge the deprivation of liberty of their child in a specialist school by bringing a writ of habeas corpus. Joshua Swirsky analyses the ruling.’
Local Government Lawyer, 1st April 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The comparators for damages for unlawful deprivation of liberty of persons lacking mental capacity are few. In Essex County Council v RF & others [2015] EWCOP 1, DJ Mort made a distinction between procedural and substantive breaches and where he found the local authority ‘totally inadequate and their failings significant’, assessed monthly damages between £3000 – £4000 over a period of at least 13 months. In the case of Emile, DJ Beckley awarded damages against the London Borough of Haringey for a period of almost 8 years’ unlawful deprivation of liberty in the sum of £143,000.00. The local authority was granted permission, out of time, to appeal. The decision of HHJ Saggerson was handed down on 18 December 2020.’
Garden Court Chambers, 26th February 2021
Source: www.gardencourtchambers.co.uk
‘Welcome to the latest issue of Spire Barristers’ Public Law Newsletter covering news from around the web, practice updates and case reviews in Court of Protection and Public Law matters.’
Spire Barristers, 10th February 2021
Source: spirebarristers.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has sent a second judgment in less than a month – this time “more in exasperated hope than expectation” – to the Children’s Commissioner for England, the Secretary of State for Education, the Minister for Children and others over the lack of regulated accommodation for vulnerable children.’
Local Government Lawyer, 24th November 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘Issue #40 of Spire Barristers’ Family Law Newsletter: edited by Connie Purdy and Taz Irshad; news and Case Reviews by Francesca Massarella.’
Spire Barristers, 21st October 2020
Source: spirebarristers.co.uk
‘The number of children in care in England and Wales who have restrictions placed on their freedom has tripled in the last two years, BBC News has found.’
BBC News, 6th August 2020
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘With the delay to the introduction of the Liberty Protection Safeguards until April 2022, and unless the Mental Health Act 1983 is applicable, there is no administrative mechanism available to authorise the deprivation of liberty for a person with impaired decision-making capacity who is either (1) outside a hospital or care home; or (2) is in a hospital or care home or is aged 16 or 17. This means that, unless a court authorises the position, those people caring for the person have no legal “cover” for their actions, and (where relevant) the public body commissioning care or aware of the person’s circumstances will also be acting unlawfully.’
39 Essex Chambers, July 2020
‘The view that careful adherence to proper legal process and appropriate authorisation of deprivations of liberty may now, at times, be required to give way to other pressing welfare priorities is “entirely misconceived”, the Vice President of the Court of Protection has warned.’
Local Government Lawyer, 15th May 2020
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘In the Winter edition of our Family Under 10’s Newsletter, Simon Wilkinson provides a case update with regards to the Matter of D, Giorgia Sessi studies the guidance published by the Courts and Tribunals Judiciary, whilst Charlotte Wilce lays out a case study regarding the role of CAFCASS in relation to non-subject children.’
Parklane Plowden, 7th January 2020
Source: www.parklaneplowden.co.uk
‘The local authority was applying for a secure accommodation order in respect of B (aged 15). B and her parents opposed this, mainly because the proposed placement was some distance away.’
Transparency Project, 29th November 2019
Source: www.transparencyproject.org.uk
‘The law governing the deprivation of a person’s liberty in a hospital can be complex. In every case it involves (or should involve) consideration of the question of what amounts to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of domestic legislation and Article 5 of the European Convention of Human Rights (‘ECHR’). In very many cases, it involves the interface of two statutory regimes (the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘MHA 1983’) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (‘MCA 2005’)).’
39 Essex Chambers, 11th November 2019
Source: www.39essex.com
‘A council has been criticised by a Court of Protection judge for breaching the duty of full and frank disclosure when it made an application under the streamlined procedure for authorisation of a deprivation of liberty.’
Local Government Lawyer, 30th October 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘A council deliberately broke the law by failing to properly assess whether thousands of vulnerable people were illegitimately kept under continuous and restrictive supervision by care home staff, the local government and social care ombudsman has ruled.’
The Guardian, 1st April 2019
Source: www.theguardian.com
‘Care homes and hospitals are applying for hundreds more elderly people to be locked inside, new data shows.’
Daily Telegraph, 29th March 2019
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘In two judgments (Re A and Re B) Cobb J has confirmed that capacity to make decisions about internet and social media use do not form a “subset” of of a person’s ability to make decisions about care or contact. Capacity to use the internet and social media are “inextricably linked; the internet is the communication platform on which social media operates. For present purposes, it does not make sense in my judgment to treat them as different things. It would, in my judgment, be impractical and unnecessary to assess capacity separately in relation to using the internet for social communications as to using it for entertainment, education, relaxation, and/or for gathering information.”‘
Doughty Street Chambers, 26th February 2019
Source: insights.doughtystreet.co.uk
‘Court of Protection judges should not summarily dismiss cases where someone’s liberty is at stake, Mr Justice Hayden, Vice President of the court, has said.’
Local Government Lawyer, 14th March 2019
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2021