A County Council v MB & Ors

A County Council v MB & Ors

The second urgent authorisation was invalid under Schedule A1 MCA 2005, as only one urgent authorisation is permitted for an existing detention. Section 4B MCA 2005 did not apply because the relevant belief was not established. The deprivation of liberty between the expiry of the first standard authorisation and the court order was not authorised by law and breached Article 5 ECHR.

Parties
Applicant: A County Council; 1st Respondent: MB; 2nd Respondent: JB; 3rd Respondent: A Residential Home
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Judgment / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declaration granted; MB was unlawfully deprived of her liberty between the expiry of the first standard authorisation and the court order.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols), Article 5 ECHR, Best Interests, Urgent and Standard Authorisations, Court of Protection Procedures
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols) Article 5 ECHR Best Interests Urgent and Standard Authorisations Court of Protection Procedures

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 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A County Council

Applicant

MB

1st Respondent

JB

2nd Respondent

A Residential Home

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judgment / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was MB unlawfully deprived of her liberty between the expiry of the first standard authorisation and the court order?
  2. 2 Did the second urgent authorisation lawfully authorise deprivation of liberty?
  3. 3 Does section 4B MCA 2005 render the deprivation lawful?

Ratio Decidendi

The second urgent authorisation was invalid under Schedule A1 MCA 2005, as only one urgent authorisation is permitted for an existing detention. Section 4B MCA 2005 did not apply because the relevant belief was not established. The deprivation of liberty between the expiry of the first standard authorisation and the court order was not authorised by law and breached Article 5 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; MB was unlawfully deprived of her liberty between the expiry of the first standard authorisation and the court order.

Orders

  • Declaration that MB was unlawfully deprived of her liberty from midnight 29 March 2010 until the court order on 13 April 2010.