KK v STCC

KK v STCC

The court found that the local authority failed to prove KK lacks capacity to make decisions as to her residence and care. KK demonstrated sufficient understanding and insight into her needs and the consequences of her decisions. The circumstances at STCC, including daily home visits and absence of continuous control or restraint, do not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.

Parties
Applicant: CC; 1st Respondent: KK; 2nd Respondent: STCC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Mental Capacity Act Application / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
KK has capacity to make decisions about her residence and care; her circumstances at STCC do not amount to a deprivation of liberty.
Legal Topics
Capacity Assessment, Deprivation of Liberty, Article 5 ECHR, Care and Residence Decisions
Mental Capacity Human Rights Health Law Capacity Assessment Deprivation of Liberty Article 5 ECHR Care and Residence Decisions

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CC

Applicant

KK

1st Respondent

STCC

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Mental Capacity Act Application / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether KK has capacity to make decisions about her residence and care
  2. 2 Whether KK's circumstances at STCC amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the local authority failed to prove KK lacks capacity to make decisions as to her residence and care. KK demonstrated sufficient understanding and insight into her needs and the consequences of her decisions. The circumstances at STCC, including daily home visits and absence of continuous control or restraint, do not amount to a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR.

Court Disposition

KK has capacity to make decisions about her residence and care; her circumstances at STCC do not amount to a deprivation of liberty.

Orders

  • Application under s.21A dismissed
  • Local authority to continue facilitating KK’s home visits as agreed