Deprivation of liberty

The Deprivation of Liberty safeguards

In the case of HL v United Kingdom, also known as the Bournewood case, the European Court of Human Rights held that a procedure prescribed by law must be followed where a person with mental disorder is cared for or given treatment in conditions which amount to a deprivation of their liberty.

As a result of this case a number of provisions were inserted into the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005) by the Mental Health Act 2007 (MHA 2007), and came into force on 1 April 2009. In particular, the addition of Schedule A1 to MCA 2005 introduced what has become known as the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards regime or DOLS regime.

The new powers given by MHA 2007 to the Court of Protection and the DOLS regime were introduced in order to provide appropriate legal protection for incapacitated individuals who are or may be deprived of their liberty outside of the framework of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983).

Statutory guidance on the DOLS regime has been issued although this guidance

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Private Client News

Question of the week: A deceased has prepared a codicil but it does not refer to the date of the Will. Is the codicil valid although it does not refer to the date of the Will?

This Q&A considers whether a codicil will be valid where it does not refer to the date of the Will.

OPG issues guidance on Court of Protection deputies' approach to family care payments

The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) has published guidance outlining the legal framework for Court of Protection deputies regarding family care payments. The document provides the Public Guardian's perspective on how deputies should approach these payments, also known as gratuitous care payments, and details specific factors to consider when determining payment levels.

Private Client weekly highlights—6 March 2025

This week’s edition of Private Client highlights includes: (1) HMRC launches consultation on reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief and their application in relation to trusts; (2) Companies House publishes guidance on how to protect personal details on the Register of Overseas Entities; (3) CIOT’s Finance Bill 2024–25 briefing on the non-dom changes; (4) OSCR updates guidance on charity trustee disqualification; (5) Fane v Wellesley, where the court interpreted 'privileged relation' in company articles and shareholders' agreement to exclude a former spouse of a member; (6) Mond v Charity Commissioner for England and Wales, which concerned an appeal against a Charity Commission decision to disqualify the appellant from being a charitable trustee based on social media comments, and (7) the Finance Bill passing the House of Commons and becoming ‘substantively enacted’.

Disqualification from being a charitable trustee based on social media comments (Mond v Charity Commissioner for England and Wales)

Private Client analysis: The case concerned an appeal by the appellant (‘Mr Mond) from an order of the Charity Commissioner for England and Wales (‘the Commission’) disqualifying Mr Mond from being a charity trustee or trustee of a charity. This was in exercise of the Commission’s powers under section 181A of the Charities Act 2011 (CA 2011). CA 2011, s 181A gives the Commission power to disqualify a person from being a charitee trustee or trustee of a charitee in relation to all charities or in relation to such charities or classes of charity as may be specified. The basis of Mr Mond’s disqualification had been four social media posts. In allowing the appeal, the tribunal considered the nature of the social media posts, the conduct of Mr Mond and his rights to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Written by Lynne Counsell, barrister at Addington Chambers.