Last month, the Supreme Court clarified that a “deprivation of liberty” (for the purposes of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) occurs where a person:
Care homes and other provider organisations may struggle to understand the implications of this judgment. They are advised that, if in doubt, they should err on the side of caution in considering whether their resident or service user may be being deprived of their liberty, and make an application to the appropriate local authority for authorisation of that deprivation of liberty. The likely result may be the bombardment of local authorities with such requests, particularly from the more “conscientious” providers.
The Supreme Court judgment applies across the spectrum of care delivery, and includes domestic settings, if the arrangements are made the State, although the procedural safeguards differ. For residents or patients who may be deprived of their liberty in care homes or hospitals, the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards apply (“DOLS). For those deprived of their liberty in other settings, such as supported living, shared lives schemes, or Extra care, the local authority must make an application to the Court of Protection for specific authorisation.
The financial implications of implementing the judgment and putting in place the necessary safeguards to protect a greater number of vulnerable adults are clearly significant. Under the DOLS procedure, these costs include the fees payable to Mental Health Assessors and Best Interests Assessors, in addition to Court fees, and increased workforce expenditure.
There is a further potential but hidden cost, which is largely beyond the day to day control of the local authority, but which may have a substantial bite. This concerns any resident placed by their local authority in a private care home, under the National Assistance Act 1948.
If the private care home fails to respond effectively to the Cheshire West judgment, by not identifying a deprivation of liberty in the first place or by not notifying the local authority immediately one arises, then the resident may be unlawfully deprived of their liberty, contrary to Article 5 ECHR, and entitled to compensation. If a claim for compensation is to be pursued, then it must be pursued against the local authority.
Although damages awards for reported unlawful detention claims can be relatively modest (£35,000 was awarded in LB of Hillingdon v Neary [2011] EWHC 3522 (COP)), the impact in terms of adverse publicity, loss of morale and higher demands on the workforce and court costs can be substantial.
Most regulated providers will be anxious to ensure their residents have the proper protection of the procedural safeguards. What will ensure all such providers treat this issue with the urgency it deserves? Clearly not the risk of litigation, and an action brought against them by or on behalf of one of their residents. More realistically, some will act in response to pressure from the contracting local authority or in response to Care Quality Commission requirements.
Every responsible local authority wishes to ensure that vulnerable individuals are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully, and to avoid finding itself on the wrong end of an unlawful deprivation of liberty claim:
Steps local authorities might consider in relation to commissioned services include:
The local authority has no responsibility for self funders, who may find themselves deprived of their liberty. This includes self funders whose care is arranged for them by an attorney or Court of Protection deputy. Careful use of the Corporate deputy, or referrals to specialist Court of Protection solicitors may be a means of ensuring that arrangements made for individuals who lack capacity to make their own decisions, are not made by the local authority in the first place.
Contact Sheree Green on sheree.green@anthonycollins.com or 0121 212 7495.
The Government has announced its intention to lift the shielding requirement for extremely vulnerable people. Katherine Sinclair and Libby Hubbard discuss...
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 has now received Royal Assent. It applies to most companies as well as Limited Liability Partnerships.
The latest development in the long history of sodium valproate was the publication of The Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review today
Failure to provide minimum pension contribution protection following a TUPE transfer can end up costing a lot more than if provision had been made.
More than 700 people were consulted about their experiences of pelvic mesh, Primodos and an epilepsy drug called Sodium Valproate.
Making an application to the Court of Protection to make or change a Will for someone who is not able to do this themselves due to lacking mental capacity.
The online divorce system is a fantastic facility available to both legal professionals and litigants in person.
In a comprehensive judgement, the High Court rejected a challenge by Stagecoach to the procurement of new franchises for the South Eastern, East Midlands and West Coast rail lines.
With lockdown restrictions further lifting on 4 July, charities have a lot to think about.
We have advised a number of families, alongside Ms Ockenden’s review, in relation to concerns as to the care and treatment provided by maternity services at Shrewsbury and Telford Hospitals Trust.
To receive invitations to our events, as well as information and articles on legal issues and sector developments that are of interest to you, please sign up to Newsroom.