The claimant, a disabled adult with cerebral palsy and Downs, asserted that the care plan set out in an order of the Court of Protection involved a contravention of his human rights since it involved a deprivation of his liberty. He was incontinent but without control, would tear off parts of his incontinence pad and eat it. His carers had taken to dressing him in an adult babygrow to prevent this.
Held:The Council’s appeal succeeded. When assessing whether there had been a deprivation of liberty, it was correct to allow both for the objective reason why someone was so placed and also the purpose of the placement. As regards an adult with disability, their situation was to be determined by comparison with a similar age and capability, and with similar inherent mental and physical disabilities. The comparator was not the average man or woman on the Clapham omnibus.
Judges:
Pill, Lloyd, Munby LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 1257, [2012] PTSR 1447, [2011] WLR (D) 325
Links:
Statutes:
European Convention on Human Rights 5
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal From – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and Another COP 14-Jun-2011
The patient, an adult without capacity and with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy complained of his treatment, when in order to prevent his habit of eating his nappy, they dressed him in an adult babygrow costume. The court was asked whether the . .
Cited by:
See Also – Cheshire West and Chester Council v P CA 18-Nov-2011
. .
Appeal from – P (By His Litigation Friend The Official Solicitor) v Cheshire West and Chester Council and Another and similar SC 19-Mar-2014
Deprivation of Liberty
P and Q were two adolescent sisters without capacity. They complained that the arrangements made for their care amounted to an unjustified deprivation of liberty, and now appealed against rejection of their cases. In the second case, P, an adult . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health, Human Rights
Updated: 26 September 2022; Ref: scu.448295
