header-logo header-logo

COVID-19: Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

06 May 2020 / Laura Davidson
Issue: 7885 / Categories: Features , Covid-19 , Human rights , Mental health
printer mail-detail
Credit: Gettyimages/iStockphoto

Laura Davidson discusses an urgent Court of Protection hearing held over Skype which demonstrates the powerful & competing rights & interests of care home residents lawfully deprived of their liberty during the coronavirus pandemic

  • BP v Surrey County Council and RP [2020] EWCOP 17 considered the ramifications of the current coronavirus pandemic for care home residents lawfully deprived of their liberty under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, and assessed BP’s best interests in terms of residence where his rights under Article 8 were being severely curtailed.
  • A subsequent permission hearing is also discussed ([2020] EWCOP 22). NB copy updated: 06 May 2020

BP, a former bookmaker, is 83 years old, deaf, and suffers from Alzheimer’s disease. Safeguarding concerns had been raised due to an allegation that his disease had caused him to be aggressive towards his wife, RP. He had been moved to SH care home as a self-funder in June 2019 following hospital in-patient treatment, but had always objected to his new placement, wishing to return home.

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
back-to-top-scroll