JDO (authorisation of deprivation of liberty) [2019] EWCOP 47

Application which had been made under the streamlined procedure set out in Part 2 of Practice Direction 11A for authorisation of deprivation of liberty was not the correct procedure in this case.

The LA had applied under the streamlined procedure for continuing deprivation of liberty of the P despite concerns being raised by the P's parents. The duty of the applicant, in this case the LA, is to make ‘a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts'. If a person sensibly within the categories of person who ought to be consulted holds a view which is contrary to the applicant’s, the applicant must make that clear in the application, irrespective of its own view of the merits of that other view.

The LA did not, in the view of the court, make it clear in the form COPDOL11 that the parents opposed the application. The application should not have been brought under the streamlined procedure because there were contentious issues, and the case would now proceed through the normal court processes.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii