North Yorkshire County Council & Anor v MAG & Anor [2016] EWCOP 5 (18 January 2016)

North Yorkshire County Council & Anor v MAG & Anor [2016] EWCOP 5 (18 January 2016)

The judge below erred by failing to apply the best interests test and by conflating the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty with the suitability of accommodation. The Court of Protection's jurisdiction is limited to available options and cannot compel a public authority to provide alternatives. There was no breach of Article 5 ECHR as the deprivation of liberty was not arbitrary and the conditions did not reach the threshold of serious inappropriateness. The appeal is allowed and authorisation for deprivation of liberty should have been granted.

Citation
[2016] EWCOP 5
Parties
First Appellant: North Yorkshire County Council; Second Appellant: A Clinical Commissioning Group; First Respondent: MAG (by the Official Solicitor, as his litigation friend); Second Respondent: GC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of District Judge Glentworth, Court of Protection
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Best Interests, Article 5 ECHR, Court of Protection Jurisdiction, Proportionality, Public Authority Duties
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Public Law Deprivation of Liberty Best Interests Article 5 ECHR Court of Protection Jurisdiction Proportionality +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

North Yorkshire County Council

First Appellant

A Clinical Commissioning Group

Second Appellant

MAG (by the Official Solicitor, as his litigation friend)

First Respondent

GC

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order of District Judge Glentworth, Court of Protection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court of Protection erred in refusing to authorise deprivation of liberty for MAG in his current accommodation
  2. 2 Whether the judge misapplied the principles from Re MN regarding the limits of the Court of Protection's jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the deprivation of liberty and conditions breached Article 5 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The judge below erred by failing to apply the best interests test and by conflating the lawfulness of deprivation of liberty with the suitability of accommodation. The Court of Protection's jurisdiction is limited to available options and cannot compel a public authority to provide alternatives. There was no breach of Article 5 ECHR as the deprivation of liberty was not arbitrary and the conditions did not reach the threshold of serious inappropriateness. The appeal is allowed and authorisation for deprivation of liberty should have been granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal granted
  • Order of District Judge Glentworth set aside