header-logo header-logo

07 May 2014 / Jon Holbrook
Issue: 7605 / Categories: Opinion , Public , Human rights , Community care , Mental health
printer mail-detail

A distorted view

web_holbrook

Liberate social policy from the influence of human rights, says Jon Holbrook

Social policy towards those without capacity changed on 19 March 2014. It changed not as a result of a public discussion about the issue but because of a judgment given by the Supreme Court (Cheshire West [2014] UKSC 19, [2014] All ER (D) 185 (Mar)). The change was not preceded by a Royal Commission, Green Paper, debate in Parliament or any other engagement with the public, but after seven judges received legal submissions from 17 barristers. The change was not determined by the needs of those in care, but by the requirements of human rights laws.

Until recently the living arrangements of those without capacity, such as those with advanced dementia or severe autism, in care homes and hospitals were, broadly speaking, a matter for relatives, carers and doctors. From now on thousands of incapacitated adults being adequately cared for in care homes and hospitals will be subject to routine scrutiny by local authorities and even more

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