‘The President of the Family Division of the High Court Sir James Munby predicts rush of claims from care home patients held in ‘cages’.’
Daily Telegraph, 8th May 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘Mentally incapacitated people have the same rights to liberty as everyone else. If their own living arrangements would amount to a deprivation of liberty of a non-disabled individual then these would also be a deprivation of liberty for the disabled person. So says the Supreme Court, which has ruled that disabled people are entitled to periodic independent checks to ensure that the deprivation of liberty remains justified.’
UK Human Rights Blog, 8th April 2014
Source: www.ukhumanrightsblog.com
‘The dust is now beginning to settle, slightly, after the earthquake that was the decision of the Supreme Court in the conjoined appeals of Cheshire West and P and Q, which extends the criteria for determining whether living arrangements made for mentally incapacitated individuals amount to a deprivation of liberty.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 25th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
Supreme Court, 19th March 2014
‘Mentally incapacitated persons had the same rights to liberty as everyone else, and if their living arrangements would amount to a deprivation of liberty of a capacitous person they were also a deprivation of liberty of the incapacitated person, who was therefore entitled to periodic independent checks to ensure that the deprivation of liberty remained justified in his or her best interests.’
WLR Daily, 19th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Tim Baldwin comments on today’s Supreme Court judgment regarding the deprivation of liberty of people with disabilities.
This note concerns the case of P (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor) (Appellant) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another (Respondents); P and Q (by their litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)(Appellants) v Surrey County Council (Respondent) [2014] UKSC 19 handed down on the 19 March 2014.’
Garden Court Chambers Blog, 19th March 2014
Source: www.gclaw.wordpress.com
‘Disabled people have the same right to “physical liberty” as others, one of the UK’s most senior judges has said. Lady Hale, deputy president of the Supreme Court, said the state had a duty to uphold that right and to cater for disabled people.’
BBC News, 19th March 2014
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘The House of Lords Select Committee appointed to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) has now reported. After a mammoth evidence gathering exercise (the transcripts of the oral evidence received and the written evidence submitted ran to almost 2,000 pages), the Committee has provided a damning report upon almost all aspects of the (lack of) implementation of the MCA 2005.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 17th March 2014
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘Tens of thousands of the most vulnerable patients are effectively being kept prisoner in care homes and hospitals through misuse of mental health laws, a damning House of Lords investigation has found.’
The Guardian, 13th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘Sally Bradley and Michael Edwards, barristers of 4 Paper Buildings, consider the President’s guidance on transparency in the Court of Protection as well as the most important recent judgments.’
Family Law Week, 16th February 2014
Source: www.familylawweek.co.uk
“This paper has been prepared for the information of legal practitioners by the Law Society’s Mental Health and Disability Committee. It sets out our concerns as to the impact of the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 on the entitlement to non-means tested legal aid in DoLs cases where there is court challenge to a DoLS authorisation.”
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, November 2013
Source: www.39essex.com
“This paper seeks to take a step back from the intricacies of the DOLS regime that we have learned to know and, at best (I sense) tolerate since it was introduced in April 2009. Rather, it seeks to re examine the fundamental question of what constitutes a deprivation of liberty for purposes of Article 5(1) ECHR in the context of those without capacity to determine their own residence and care/treatment arrangements.”
Full story (PDF)
Thirty Nine Essex Street, November 2012
Source: www.39essex.com
© Inner Temple Library 2024