P & Q v Surrey County Council & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 190 (28 February 2011)

P & Q v Surrey County Council & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 190 (28 February 2011)

The arrangements for P and Q, though involving supervision and control, do not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 ECHR. The absence of objection, the normality of the living arrangements, the opportunities for education and social contact, and the lack of close confinement are decisive. The appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 190
Parties
Appellants: P (otherwise known as MIG) and Q (otherwise known as MEG), by the Official Solicitor, their litigation friend; First Respondent: Surrey County Council; Second Respondent: CA; Third Respondent: LA; Intervener: Equality and Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal From the Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, Article 5 ECHR, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Care Arrangements for Incapacitated Persons
Human Rights Law Mental Capacity Law Public Law Deprivation of Liberty Article 5 ECHR Mental Capacity Act 2005 Care Arrangements for Incapacitated Persons

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P (otherwise known as MIG) and Q (otherwise known as MEG), by the Official Solicitor, their litigation friend

Appellants

Surrey County Council

First Respondent

CA

Second Respondent

LA

Third Respondent

Equality and Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal From the Court of Protection / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the care arrangements for P and Q amount to a deprivation of liberty engaging Article 5 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether the arrangements require regular court review under Article 5(4) ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The arrangements for P and Q, though involving supervision and control, do not amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of Article 5 ECHR. The absence of objection, the normality of the living arrangements, the opportunities for education and social contact, and the lack of close confinement are decisive. The appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration that the arrangements for P and Q do not amount to a deprivation of their liberty is upheld
  • No order as to costs or further relief