Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise

Cases

Bournemouth Borough Council v  PS v DS [2015] EWCOP 39

16/6/2015

 
This case concerned an application by Bournemouth Borough Council (‘BBC’) and the main issue for the court to determine was whether or not the care package provided for Ben (‘P’) amounted to the deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5.
The Facts
P was born on 12th February 1987 and is 28 years.  P was diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder and mild learning disabilities. There was no dispute regarding the fact that P lacked capacity for the purposes of the MCA 2005.

In his earlier years P was made the subject of a full care order within family proceedings and placed in a number of institutional placements. In 2011 P moved to his present accommodation, which consists of a two-bedroom bungalow with a garden, where he resides on his own. P has staff in his home for 365 days a year with 24 hour waking night staff. P is subject to constant observation and monitoring. He is provided with minimal personal care.

P is supported and encouraged in the following areas:
  • To engage with a timetable to ensure daily tasks are completed within appropriate times of the day;
  • P declines this on occasions preferring to have things done for him very much like the institutional settings he resided in previously;
  • Using local transport to do his shopping;
  • P needs to be encouraged to get of bed in the morning as he is likely to remain in bed until 12 noon if left;
  • Encouraged to complete personal care tasks - without support P would neglect this;
  • P does not have access to the kitchen during meal times as he can put himself and others at risk due to previous incidents;
  • P can access the kitchen at all other times and is attended by staff when he does;
  • P’s medication is managed and administered by staff, and the medication is locked away;
  • In daily tasks including using local transport and doing his own shopping.
There are no locks on the doors but sensors would alert staff if he left, although he has not done so. P is able to leave the house but needs one to one support at all times in the community.

Measures were in place in the event that P did not wish to return home. In the event that P could not be persuaded then ultimately the police would be asked to exercise their powers under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The court was told in the event that P was to walk out in front of a car the staff would prevent him with a ‘duty of common humanity’.

Concerns
The issue was whether this regime amounted to a deprivation of P’s liberty.

The Law
The court considered the ‘acid test’ in the light of the decision in P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and another; P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19.

Amongst other cases the court considered was the decision by Bodey J in W City Council v KW & Ors [2015] EWCOP 20. It was stated that: ‘the difference between deprivation of liberty and a restriction to liberty is one of degree or intensity, not one of nature or substance’  [see paragraph 27 of Mostyn J’s judgment].

Decision
The court found that P was not being deprived of his liberty. It found that P was not under continuous supervision. P had privacy and he was free to leave. If he were to leave he would be persuaded to come back but that this persuasion would not ‘cross the line into coercion' [paragraph 33]. The deprivation of liberty would only come in if P was subjected to police powers under the Mental Health Act.

Discussion
This case demonstrates the continuing difficulty in determining whether or not someone is deprived of their liberty if they are assisted and cared for in a non-institutional setting. The court discussed previous cases and stated that the test is likely to be determined by the ‘I know it when I see it’ legal technique’ [see paragraph 29].  Each case will need to be determined on their own facts.

The court looked at the wording of Article 5 and everyone having the right to ‘liberty and security’. ‘Security’ in the case of W City Council was restrictions being put in place for her best interests, which Mostyn J agreed with [paragraph 28].

In this case the Official Solicitor declined to act. As the new rules are not yet in place (but soon to be on 1st July 2015) the court discharged P as a party stating that his views could be properly and fully heard through his IMCA.

The court referred to the increase in these cases since the Cheshire West judgment urging the Supreme Court to urgently consider the matter.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii


Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Support the Hub
    This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work.  Click here to contribute.

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Fact Finding
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Property
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination
    Travel

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025
    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    February 2024
    January 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    October 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    May 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About & Advertise