AJ (Deprivation Of Liberty Safeguards)

AJ (Deprivation Of Liberty Safeguards)

The local authority breached AJ’s rights under Article 5(1) and 5(4) ECHR by failing to obtain authorisation or a court order before depriving her of liberty, wrongly appointing and failing to replace an RPR who would not support a challenge, and not ensuring that the IMCA or itself brought the matter before the court expeditiously. The statutory and regulatory framework requires proactive steps to enable a person deprived of liberty to challenge that deprivation, and the local authority’s failures constituted unlawful deprivation and procedural violations.

Parties
Applicant: AJ; Respondent: A Local Authority
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards / Mental Capacity / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Declaration granted; local authority found in breach of Article 5(1) and 5(4) ECHR; no damages awarded; costs and further directions as per judgment.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols), Appointment of Relevant Person’s Representative (rpr), Appointment of Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (imca), Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Human Rights Act 1998, Mental Capacity Act 2005
Mental Health Law Human Rights Law Administrative Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols) Appointment of Relevant Person’s Representative (rpr) Appointment of Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (imca) Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR +2 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AJ

Applicant

A Local Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards / Mental Capacity / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the local authority unlawfully deprived AJ of her liberty without proper authorisation or court order
  2. 2 Whether the appointment and monitoring of the Relevant Person’s Representative (RPR) complied with statutory and human rights obligations
  3. 3 Whether the appointment and actions of the Independent Mental Capacity Advocate (IMCA) satisfied the requirements to enable AJ to challenge her deprivation of liberty

Ratio Decidendi

The local authority breached AJ’s rights under Article 5(1) and 5(4) ECHR by failing to obtain authorisation or a court order before depriving her of liberty, wrongly appointing and failing to replace an RPR who would not support a challenge, and not ensuring that the IMCA or itself brought the matter before the court expeditiously. The statutory and regulatory framework requires proactive steps to enable a person deprived of liberty to challenge that deprivation, and the local authority’s failures constituted unlawful deprivation and procedural violations.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; local authority found in breach of Article 5(1) and 5(4) ECHR; no damages awarded; costs and further directions as per judgment.

Orders

  • Declaration that the local authority unlawfully deprived AJ of her liberty between 13th and 20th June 2013 without authorisation or court order.
  • Declaration that the local authority infringed AJ’s rights under Article 5(4) ECHR between 5th June and 18th November 2013 by wrongly appointing and failing to replace the RPR and failing to ensure a prompt court challenge.