JE v DE & Ors

JE v DE & Ors

DE has been and is being deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) ECHR because he is not free to leave the care homes to live where and with whom he chooses, specifically with his wife JE, and SCC has exercised complete and effective control over his residence, regardless of the absence of physical barriers or SCC's stated intentions; the consistent message and practice was that DE could not leave, and police would be called to prevent removal, amounting to a deprivation of liberty.

Parties
Claimant: JE; First Defendant: DE (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor); Second Defendant: Surrey County Council; Third Defendant: EW
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 December 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil (family/inherent Jurisdiction/human Rights) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Issue (deprivation of Liberty)
Outcome
Declaration that DE has at all times since 4 September 2005 been and is now being deprived of his liberty by Surrey County Council.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Capacity, Doctrine of Necessity, Best Interests, State Detention, False Imprisonment, Guardianship, Care of Vulnerable Adults
Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Mental Health Law Family Law Administrative Law Deprivation of Liberty Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +7 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 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JE

Claimant

DE (by his litigation friend the Official Solicitor)

First Defendant

Surrey County Council

Second Defendant

EW

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (family/inherent Jurisdiction/human Rights) / Interlocutory Judgment on Preliminary Issue (deprivation of Liberty)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether DE has been and is being deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) ECHR by Surrey County Council since 4 September 2005
  2. 2 Whether the restrictions imposed by SCC amount to a deprivation of liberty or mere restrictions on liberty
  3. 3 Whether DE's lack of capacity and his consistent objection to his placement affect the analysis under Article 5(1)

Ratio Decidendi

DE has been and is being deprived of his liberty within the meaning of Article 5(1) ECHR because he is not free to leave the care homes to live where and with whom he chooses, specifically with his wife JE, and SCC has exercised complete and effective control over his residence, regardless of the absence of physical barriers or SCC's stated intentions; the consistent message and practice was that DE could not leave, and police would be called to prevent removal, amounting to a deprivation of liberty.

Court Disposition

Declaration that DE has at all times since 4 September 2005 been and is now being deprived of his liberty by Surrey County Council.

Orders

  • Declaration of deprivation of liberty under Article 5(1) ECHR against Surrey County Council