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.

The court in Re NRA was faced with the need to devise a system which was compliant with Article 5 ECHR (deprivation of liberty) but not so onerous that it diverted resources away from frontline services, caused unnecessary interference in the lives of P and those who care for P, or resulted in excessive delay.

PJ was a man on a Community Treatment Order (CTO) which required him to live at a care home and abide by the regime there. PJ sought discharge of the CTO on the basis that the arrangements for his care amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty in breach of Article 5. The Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) refused the application holding that PJ was not deprived of his liberty. In the Upper Tribunal, Charles J emphasised the different elements of the test for deprivation of liberty. He held that the MHRT had erred in law: (1) in its approach to the assessment of the degree of supervision and control required; and (2) by divorcing that consideration from the freedom of PJ to leave. The MHRT had overlooked, and failed to take into account, the guidance given in Cheshire West that the reason or purpose of the relevant conditions was not relevant to the assessment of whether the objective element of a deprivation of liberty was satisfied.

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.

This toolkit supports healthcare professionals’ understanding of advance decisions. It looks at: the legal framework for advance decisions and explains healthcare professionals’ obligations when caring for someone who lacks capacity; what an advance decision is and the criteria one needs to meet; how to support someone to make an advance decision; what steps should be followed if a person lacks capacity and has an advance decision; challenges that healthcare professionals may face when acting on an advance decision and offers practical guidance to help overcome them; and the relationship between advance decisions and lasting power of attorney for health and welfare. It consolidates guidance from the Mental Capacity Act, General Medical Council and British Medical Association.

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