G v E and Others: CoP 26 Mar 2010

E Was born with and still suffered severe learning difficulties. The court was asked as to the extent of his capacity to make decisions, and as to where he should live, with a family member, the carer or with the local authority, which had removed him from her care. As he had become an adult, E had displayed physically challenging behaviour to his carer and at school. He also said that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty.
Held: The court considered the safeguards introduced by the 2007 Act. It was agreed that E lacked capacity, and that the degree of confinement under which he was placed amounted to a deprivation of liberty. That deprivation had been unlawful. Carrying out a balancing exercise to decide on E’s best interests, it would be wrong to allow an immediate return to G. The Authority must devise a programme for increasing contact with G so that E could return when appropriate, with a review hearing later.
Baker J
[2010] EWHC 621 (Fam), [2010] EWHC 621 (COP), [2010] 2 FLR 294, [2010] Fam Law 703
Bailii, Bailii
European Convention on Human Rights 5 6, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Mental Health Act 2007
Citing:
CitedIn Re L (By His Next Friend GE); Regina v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, Ex Parte L HL 25-Jun-1998
The applicant was an adult autistic, unable to consent to medical treatment. Treatment was provided at a day centre. He had been detained informally under the Act and against the wishes of his carers, but the Court of Appeal decided he should have . .
CitedWinterwerp v The Netherlands ECHR 24-Oct-1979
A Dutch national detained in hospital complained that his detention had divested him of his capacity to administer his property, and thus there had been determination of his civil rights and obligations without the guarantee of a judicial procedure. . .
CitedIn re PS (an Adult), Re; City of Sunderland v PS by her litigation friend the Offcial Solcicitor and CA; Re PS (Incapacitated or Vulnerable Adult) FD 9-Mar-2007
The patient an elderly lady with limited mental capacity was to be returned from hospital, but her daughter said she was to come home. The local authority sought to prevent this, wanting to return her to a residential unit where she had lived for . .
CitedA Local Authority v MA and others; Re SA (Vulnerable Adult with Capacity: Marriage) FD 15-Dec-2005
Munby J discussed the court’s inherent powers to make orders to protect the welfare of a vulnerable adult: ‘It is elementary that the court exercises its powers by reference to the incompetent adult’s best interests . . The particular form of order . .
CitedIn re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation) HL 4-May-1989
Where a patient lacks capacity, there is the power to provide him with whatever treatment or care is necessary in his own best interests. Medical treatment can be undertaken in an emergency even if, through a lack of capacity, no consent had been . .
CitedHL v United Kingdom ECHR 2004
Patient’s lack of Safeguards was Infringement
The claimant had been detained at a mental hospital as in ‘informal patient’. He was an autistic adult. He had been recommended for release by the Mental Health Review Tribunal, and it was decided that he should be released. He was detained further . .
CitedRe DE, JE v DE, Surrey County Council and EW FD 29-Dec-2006
JE, wife of DE, who had been taken into residential care by the Local authority, said that the authority had infringed his Article 5 and 8 rights on transferring him between homes. The authority asserted that he did not have mental capacity. She . .
CitedGJ v The Foundation Trust and Another FD 20-Nov-2009
The statutory provisions of the 2007 Act for review of standard authorisations were matters that the Court of Protection should take into account in determining whether it should make an order authorising the deprivation of P’s liberty, and if so . .
CitedIn re S (Adult patient) (Inherent jurisdiction: Family life); Sheffield City Council v S FD 2002
A court could only grant an order permitting treatment despite the absence of an adult patient’s consent by virtue of the doctrine of necessity.
Munby J said: ‘in our multi-cultural and pluralistic society the family takes many forms . . The . .
CitedIn re M; ITW v Z and Others (Statutory Will) FD 12-Oct-2009
The court considered a request for a statutory will under the 2005 Act.
Held: the Court of Protection has no jurisdiction to rule on the validity of any will. However, Munby J made three points: (1) that the 2005 Act laid down no hierarchy as . .
CitedGuzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
CitedLocal Authority X v MM and Another; re MM (An Adult) FD 21-Aug-2007
The test for capacity to consent to sexual relations must be the same in its essentials as the test in the criminal law; more importantly ‘a woman either has capacity, for example, to consent to ‘normal’ penetrative vaginal intercourse, or she does . .
CitedStorck v Germany ECHR 16-Jun-2005
ECHR Judgment (Merits and Just Satisfaction) – Preliminary objection rejected ( res iudicata ); Violation of Art. 5-1 (placement in private clinic from 1977 to 1979); No separate issue under Arts. 5-4 and 5-5; No . .
CitedGuzzardi v Italy ECHR 6-Nov-1980
The applicant, a suspected Mafioso, had been detained in custody pending his trial. At the end of the maximum period of detention pending trial, he had been taken to an island where, he complained, he was unable to work, keep his family permanently . .
CitedK And T v Finland ECHR 12-Jul-2001
ECHR Judgment (Merits and just satisfaction) Violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning J.; No violation of Art. 8 with regard to emergency care order concerning M.; No violation of Art. 8 . .
CitedGaskin v The United Kingdom ECHR 7-Jul-1989
The applicant complained of ill-treatment while he was in the care of a local authority and living with foster parents. He sought access to his case records held by the local authority but his request was denied.
Held: The refusal to allow him . .
CitedSt George’s Healthcare National Health Service Trust v S, Regina v Collins and Others ex parte S CA 8-May-1998
The authority wanted S to be admitted to hospital, if necessary against her will. She was pregnant and wanted to have a natural birth, even at great risk to herself and her baby. She had refused medical treatment for eclampsia. The caesarian had by . .
CitedSecretary of State for the Home Department v E and Another HL 31-Oct-2007
The applicant, who was subject to a control order, complained that the respondent had failed as required to keep under review the possibility of a prosecution, and had renewed the order without satisfying that requirement.
Held: The appeal . .
ApprovedLondon Borough of Enfield v SA, FA and KA 2010
McFarlane J considered whether hearsay statements from a person who lacked capacity were admissible under the 2007 Rules (‘COPR’).
Held: The power of the Court to ‘admit such evidence, whether written or oral, as it thinks fit’ pursuant to . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromG v E and Others CA 16-Jul-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic disorder leading to severe learning disability and lack of mental capacity. He had been in the care of his sister, the appellant, but had been removed by the local authority when his behaviour became disturbed. G, . .
Appeal FromG v E and Others CA 4-May-2010
E, now aged 19, suffered a genetic condition leading to severe learning disability, and a lack of mental capacity. After being in the care of F, but displaying potentially violent behaviours, he was removed against his and F’s will to the care of . .
See AlsoG v E and Others FD 21-Dec-2010
(Court of Protection) Baker J awarded costs against a local authority which had been guilty of misconduct which, he held, justified departure from the general rule. He observed: ‘Parties should be free to bring personal welfare issues to the Court . .
See AlsoManchester City Council v G and Others CA 2-Aug-2011
The Council had been found to have wrongfully deprived the applicant of his liberty. They appealed now against an award of costs made against them.
Held: The appeal failed. The judge the power to depart from the usual order made under rule 157 . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 06 March 2021; Ref: scu.431228