M, Re [2015] EWCOP 69 (07 July 2015)

M, Re [2015] EWCOP 69 (07 July 2015)

Given the history and circumstances, it is in M's best interests for a deputy to be appointed for both health/welfare and property/affairs, and that deputy should be independent of the local authority to maximise trust and effective collaboration. M's care arrangements at T Road amount to a deprivation of liberty under the Cheshire West 'acid test', requiring court authorisation and annual review. Restrictions on disclosure and publication are necessary to protect M's privacy but should not prevent E and A from discussing their experiences in a way that does not identify M or his placement.

Citation
[2015] EWCOP 69
Parties
Applicant: A Local Authority; First Respondent: M (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor); Second Respondent: E; Third Respondent: A
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Proceedings Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Fact Finding and Multiple Interim Orders
Outcome
Deputy appointed; deprivation of liberty authorised; disclosure restrictions imposed; miscellaneous applications dismissed.
Legal Topics
Deputyship Appointment, Deprivation of Liberty, Disclosure and Publicity Restrictions, Contact Arrangements, Best Interests Determination
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Family Law Deputyship Appointment Deprivation of Liberty Disclosure and Publicity Restrictions Contact Arrangements Best Interests Determination

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Local Authority

Applicant

M (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor)

First Respondent

E

Second Respondent

A

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Proceedings Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 / Final Judgment After Fact Finding and Multiple Interim Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a deputy should be appointed for M for health, welfare, and property and affairs; if so, who should be appointed
  2. 2 Whether M's current care arrangements amount to a deprivation of liberty and, if so, whether it should be authorised
  3. 3 What restrictions, if any, should be placed on the disclosure and publication of information relating to the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Given the history and circumstances, it is in M's best interests for a deputy to be appointed for both health/welfare and property/affairs, and that deputy should be independent of the local authority to maximise trust and effective collaboration. M's care arrangements at T Road amount to a deprivation of liberty under the Cheshire West 'acid test', requiring court authorisation and annual review. Restrictions on disclosure and publication are necessary to protect M's privacy but should not prevent E and A from discussing their experiences in a way that does not identify M or his placement.

Court Disposition

Deputy appointed; deprivation of liberty authorised; disclosure restrictions imposed; miscellaneous applications dismissed.

Orders

  • Ms Z (independent solicitor) appointed as deputy for health, welfare, and property/affairs for M, with specified powers and reporting obligations.
  • M's deprivation of liberty at T Road is authorised as lawful and in his best interests, subject to annual review.