Site icon swarb.co.uk

P and Q v Surrey County Council: CA 28 Feb 2011

The appellant sisters, both with substantial learing disabilities appealed against a declaration that the arrangements made for their care by the respondent did not amount to a deprivation of their liberty. In either case, they would only be allowed to leave their residence under escort of a competent adult.
Held: The appeals failed.

Judges:

Mummery, Smith, Wilson LJJ

Citations:

[2011] EWCA Civ 190, [2012] PTSR 727, [2011] 2 FLR 583, [2011] Fam Law 475, [2011] MHLR 125, [2011] HRLR 19, [2011] UKHRR 584, [2012] Fam 170, [2012] 2 WLR 1056, [2011] 1 FCR 559, (2011) 14 CCL Rep 209

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention on Human Rights 5, Mental Capacity Act 2005

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedSalford City Council v GJ, NJ and BJ (Incapacitated adults) FD 16-May-2008
The court considered the place of human rights considerations in local authority decisions regarding the care and placement of incapacitated adults.
Held: The situation should be reviewed at least annually and at shorter intervals as . .

Cited by:

CitedP (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: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.430079

Exit mobile version