header-logo header-logo

19 December 2014 / Jon Holbrook
Issue: 7635 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

The big question

Jon Holbrook reflects on why John Stuart Mill is a better guide to “liberty” than judicial precedent

Writing in The Guardian Simon Jenkins observed how issues of social policy often call for a philosopher yet “all we get are bloody lawyers” (“Our addiction to criminalising human behaviour makes a mockery of private responsibility”, 6 November 2014). His point being that deep thinking about social issues is often curtailed by the lawyer’s resort to judicial precedent.

This criticism cannot be levelled at Mr Justice Mostyn who ruled in November on whether the caring arrangement for Katherine, a woman who lacked the mental capacity to make decisions for herself, amounted to a deprivation of her liberty (Rochdale MBC v KW [2014] EWCOP 45, [2014] All ER (D) 200 (Nov)). Mostyn J observed “that the first question I have to answer is what is ‘liberty’ for Katherine?” This, he noted, “is obviously a big question”. And he proceeded to answer it with citations from John Stuart Mill’s essay “On liberty”.

By approaching this

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll