Liverpool City Council v SG & Ors
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE HOLMAN
Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Family Law
- Health Law
2014
COURT OF PROTECTION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case revolves around whether the Court of Protection can authorize the deprivation of liberty for SG, an adult living in a children's home, under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The court determined that the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001 and joint guidance do not preclude such authorization, holding that the Court of Protection holds that power.
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT
MR JUSTICE HOLMAN:
I have heard this case in public and now give this judgment in public. I direct that no report of this case in the media or elsewhere may name the patient, nor her parents, nor the address at which she or they reside.
This case raises the following question:
Does the Court of Protection have power to make an order which authorises that a person who is not a child (ie who has attained the age of 18) may be deprived of his liberty in premises which are a children’s home as defined in section 1(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 and are subject to the Children’s Homes Regulations 2001 (as amended)?
Both parties and their counsel in these proceedings submit that the answer is “yes”. I agree with them that the answer is “yes”.
I wish to stress at once the scope of that question which I have precisely drafted. This judgment and my answer to the question applies only in the case of a person who is not a child, that is, who has attained the age of 18. This judgment says nothing at all in relation to a person who has not attained the age of 18, and in particular to persons between the ages of 16 and 18. Further, this judgment is only concerned with a person in a children’s home, and says nothing at all with regard to a person who may be detained in a residential school.
I also wish to emphasise that both parties and their counsel who are before me in this case are agreed upon the answer to that question and the reasons for the answer. In other words, I have not heard any argument or submissions to the contrary. If, in some other case, on a future date, some party wishes to argue to the contrary, then of course that limitation or reservation upon the value of this ex tempore judgment as a precedent may be noted.
The reason why the question has been posed appears to derive from two relatively recent developments. The first development is the recent decision of the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case. The explanation given in that case by Baroness Hale of Richmond as to the scope or breadth of the concept of a deprivation of liberty has led to a concern that a significant number of people are, or may be, being deprived of their liberty who were not previously thought to have been. As is well known, this has led to a very large number of applications to the Court of Protection in order to seek authorisations for the deprivation of liberty.
The second development is a document headed “Deprivation of Liberty – Guidance fo