A easy read guide to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Letter sent to Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) – Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) leads in local authorities and the NHS on 22 October 2015. The letter update on developments on the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and also on developments concerning the wider Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
The document includes the Department of Health Guidance in response to the Supreme Court Judgment/ Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (19 March 2014 in the case of Cheshire West).

This training session presentation focuses on deprivation of liberty safeguards, identifies changes to be implemented due to case law and examines the effects of the case law in procedure and practice.

Case law summary relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

This leaflet explains what it means to be on a standard DoLs and what are the rights of care home residents and hospital patients.

A quick guide to the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, looking at the use of DoLS, the role of the Managing Authority, what to do when a deprivation of liberty is identified, what happens when an application is made, the roles of the Supervisory Body and the Relevant Persons Representatives, and what happens when an authorisation ends.

This presentation explains what deprivation of liberty is and sets out practical steps to avoid it occurring. It explains when a DoLS authorisation may be needed and describe the process for authorisation and how to make referrals to the system.

This leaflet is for service users and their family/carers as their are being deprived of their liberty under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. It explains these safeguards and what their rights are.

This case concerns deprivation of liberty authorisation and the role of supervisory body. P was 26 years old with severe learning disability and autistic spectrum disorder. His placement broke down and he was urgently moved into a care home on 5 September 2014. On 24 November 2014 an urgent authorisation was issued by the care home and on 23 December 2014, a standard authorisation was granted by Surrey County Council, expiring on 18 October 2015. His mother, acting as relevant person’s representative and litigation friend, successfully challenged the authorisation and the court declared that it was in P’s best interests to move to a new placement after a period of transition. The court held that P had been unlawfully deprived of liberty prior to the urgent authorisation and between its expiry and the commencement of the standard authorisation. HHJ Cushing was very critical of the supervisory body for making an authorisation that ran for too long (80% of the maximum term) in circumstances where it was clear that the care home where he was deprived of his liberty was only suitable in the short term.

Five test cases involving elderly people (RD, JB, JP, EP and JW) who suffered from a form of dementia were identified to enable the court to consider the question of when an application should be made to court under section 21A MCA. All five individuals were being deprived of their liberty in a care home or hospital setting under a DOLS authorisation. The court gave general guidance as to the approach that should be adopted by RPRs and IMCAs in deciding whether to issue proceedings under s.21A.

This case relates to deprivation of liberty procedure. In Re X and others (Deprivation of Liberty) [2014] EWCOP 25 (and No 2 [2014] EWCOP 37), Sir James Munby, the President of the Court of Protection sought to devise a streamlined process to seek to enable the court to deal with DoL cases in a timely, just, fair and ECHR-compatible way. The Court of Appeal has now held that Sir James Munby P had not been entitled to proceed in the fashion that he did, and that his ‘judgments’ were in fact not authoritative statements of the law.

An easy read booklet explaining what DoLS is, including a number of examples showing the right approach.