P v Surrey County Council & Anor

P v Surrey County Council & Anor

The standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty was granted for an excessive period without adequate consideration of the suitability of the placement, the best interests assessor's recommendation for a short-term authorisation, or less restrictive alternatives. The supervisory body failed in its duty to ensure the least restrictive option and to independently assess duration, rendering the authorisation unlawful for the period beyond what was justified.

Parties
Applicant: P; First Respondent: Surrey County Council; Second Respondent: Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Declaration granted; standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty was unlawful for the period exceeding a short-term duration.
Legal Topics
Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols), Best Interests Assessment, Article 5 ECHR, Article 8 ECHR, Standard Authorisation, Care Placement
Mental Capacity Law Human Rights Law Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (dols) Best Interests Assessment Article 5 ECHR Article 8 ECHR Standard Authorisation Care Placement

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P

Applicant

Surrey County Council

First Respondent

Surrey Downs Clinical Commissioning Group

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Court of Protection Deprivation of Liberty / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether P's detention at the care home between 5 September 2014 and 23 December 2014 was lawful or in breach of Article 5 and/or Article 8
  2. 2 If unlawful, whether a right to compensation or damages arises
  3. 3 Whether P's detention at the care home between 23 December 2014 and cessation was lawful under a properly-made standard authorisation

Ratio Decidendi

The standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty was granted for an excessive period without adequate consideration of the suitability of the placement, the best interests assessor's recommendation for a short-term authorisation, or less restrictive alternatives. The supervisory body failed in its duty to ensure the least restrictive option and to independently assess duration, rendering the authorisation unlawful for the period beyond what was justified.

Court Disposition

Declaration granted; standard authorisation for deprivation of liberty was unlawful for the period exceeding a short-term duration.

Orders

  • Declaration that the Homes Caring for Autism placement is appropriate and in P's best interests.
  • Supervisory body failed to comply with least restrictive principle; future authorisations must consider duration and alternatives.