Appeal raising an “important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty”
YC, an 89 year old woman who had been placed in a residential care home during the pandemic but who wanted to return home, was the subject of a standard deprivation of liberty authorisation. In that application the wrong name had been used on many occasions in the section of Form 5 - “Evidence of Supervisory Body Scrutiny”. After this point was raised at the original hearing the judge concluded that
“I very carefully read the document and it seems to me that it’s clear that there are typographical errors in the standard authorisation document and that’s unfortunate and very regrettable, but as all of us know, typographical errors do find their way into documents and I’m satisfied, having looked at all of the documents in the round, that there was a sufficient consideration of YC’s circumstances and the error was in the typography or the form, as Mr. Paget has said, and not in the substance of the consideration.”
In this appeal. HHJ Hilder recaps the law and procedure surrounding such authorisations and, distinguishing the circumstances from Neary, agrees that the judge was entitled to reach that conclusion. However, she also invited the parties to make suggestions as to how this type of error could be prevented in the future and at  sets out four steps that would be “would be good practice and would improve the prospects of identifying and addressing errors promptly”
Read the full judgment on Bailii
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