BP v Surrey County Council & Anor

BP v Surrey County Council & Anor

The court finds that the restrictions imposed by the care home constitute an interference with BP’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR, aggravated by his deafness. However, given the public emergency posed by COVID-19 and BP’s vulnerability, the restrictions are justified as necessary and proportionate. The court determines that BP’s best interests are served by remaining in the care home with creative alternatives for contact, and that FP is suitable as litigation friend due to her balanced and even-handed approach.

Parties
Applicant: BP; 1st Respondent: Surrey County Council; 2nd Respondent: RP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Section 21 a Mental Capacity Act Application / Interim Judgment Following Urgent Application
Outcome
Interim declarations granted; BP to remain in care home with facilitated contact and remote capacity assessment.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty, COVID 19 Restrictions, Best Interests, Capacity Assessment, Family Life, Disability Rights
Mental Capacity Human Rights Health Law Deprivation of Liberty COVID 19 Restrictions Best Interests Capacity Assessment Family Life +1 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BP

Applicant

Surrey County Council

1st Respondent

RP

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Section 21 a Mental Capacity Act Application / Interim Judgment Following Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the blanket ban on visits to BP constitutes a disproportionate interference with his rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR
  2. 2 Whether it remains in BP’s best interests to stay in the care home under current restrictions
  3. 3 Whether the standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty should be revoked if restrictions are not lifted

Ratio Decidendi

The court finds that the restrictions imposed by the care home constitute an interference with BP’s rights under Articles 5 and 8 ECHR, aggravated by his deafness. However, given the public emergency posed by COVID-19 and BP’s vulnerability, the restrictions are justified as necessary and proportionate. The court determines that BP’s best interests are served by remaining in the care home with creative alternatives for contact, and that FP is suitable as litigation friend due to her balanced and even-handed approach.

Court Disposition

Interim declarations granted; BP to remain in care home with facilitated contact and remote capacity assessment.

Orders

  • Dr Babalola to conduct capacity assessment remotely with support.
  • Family to be allowed creative contact via Skype, communication board, and window visits.