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
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
More from Bath Publishing
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
Manage your email preferences