New case alert: Re R [2016] EWCOP 33

The LA claimed that the P was not being deprived of his liberty, but, even if he was, the deprivation of liberty was not imputable to the State because it was his family's responsibility, as his court-appointed deputies. The Judge found that the deprivation of liberty was directly imputable to the State. The LA was ultimately "the person making the determination" as to what was in the P's best interests and, because it was practicable and appropriate to consult them, the LA took into account the views of "any deputy appointed for the person by the court." However, the deputies' views did not automatically determine the outcome and were merely a factor that the LA was required to take into account as part of the overall decision-making process.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii