GN Law - Our People News and TV

Regulating interferences with the human rights of vulnerable adults

Our People - Maria Nicholas
19 April, 2013

If someone is deprived of their liberty and this is authorised by the Court of Protection, is up to the care home or hospital in question to determine how, or if, to regulate any restrictions on that person.

It will be surprising to most that currently there is no legislation or statutory guidance which sets out how mentally incapacitated people subject to restrictions which interfere with their Article 8 right to family life, privacy, home life and correspondence, but who are not detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, should be protected.

In the case of J Council v GU & Ors [2012] EWHC 3531 (COP) GU, known as “George” in the judgment although that is not his real name, was subject to a number of restrictions on his private life, including monitoring of his correspondence, listening to his telephone calls, and occasionally strip searching him and/or searching his room. George is 57 years old and lives in a care home. It was agreed by all parties that he is deprived of his liberty, and that this is in his best interests. George is described as an individual with a number of mental health conditions, and he is assessed as presenting a risk to others, in particular to children. This is the reason for the restrictions being imposed. The need for the restrictions was not disputed but the Official Solicitor, who acted as George’s litigation friend as he did not have capacity to instruct a solicitor himself, was concerned that there were insufficient safeguards in place and that the restrictions were not validated or overseen by any state body.

The Official Solicitor therefore proposed that there be a detailed policy for monitoring and reviewing of the restrictions on George, to be overseen by George’s NHS Trust and the Care Quality Commission (CQC).

The parties were able to agree a detailed 52 page policy arrangement, which will be periodically reviewed by the NHS Trust. The Trust will receive monthly reports and is to scrutinise any incident forms it is sent. The CQC is to obtain advice from an appropriate expert regarding George’s care, and it is to case track George when reviewing the care home generally. As George’s deprivation of liberty has been authorised by the Court, the Court will also carry out annual reviews to ensure the deprivation continues to be in George’s best interests.

Mr Justice Mostyn stated at paragraph 20 of his judgment that “where there is going to be a long-term restrictive regime accompanied by invasive monitoring of the kind with which I am concerned, it seems to me that policies overseen by the applicable NHS Trust and the CQC akin to those which have been agreed here are likely to be necessary if serious doubts as to Article 8 compliance are to be avoided.”

Further at paragraph 21, that “all this debate would become empty were Parliament or the Executive or the CQC to promulgate rules or guidance to cover the situation which I have here. It is hard to understand why there are detailed statutory provisions relating to personal searches and telephone and correspondence monitoring for high security mental hospitals but none at all for private care homes.”

For the time-being, policies for significant interference with a person’s Article 8 rights or invasive monitoring such as in George’s case, will continue to be dealt with on an ad hoc basis unless and until Parliament addresses this issue.

However, George’s case shows that even though not required to, care homes or hospitals should be putting in place policy arrangements to regulate and monitor restrictions on vulnerable adults. These in turn should be overseen by the local authority or NHS Trust in question and the CQC. Failure to do so could prompt an application to the Court of Protection to order that this is done.

See for the full judgment.

Related Articles

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), an integral part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, are crucial provisions designed to protect individuals who lack the mental capacity to make specific decisions about their well-being.
Our People - Maria Nicholas
The Office of the Public Guardian (OPG) released legal guidance tailored to professional deputies and attorneys concerning the rules governing gift-giving. This article highlights some of the key issues outlined in that guidance.
Our People - Navin Bundhoo
Recently, the Supreme Court has given a judgment regarding ‘ordinary residence’ and the circumstances in which someone is discharged from detention in hospital.
Our People - GN
When circumstances leave individuals unable to handle their own financial affairs, there are legal mechanisms available to protect their financial stability, such as Deputyship and LPAs. 
Our People - Lilian Efstathiou
The Court of Protection in the UK has the power to grant injunctions. But what is an injunction, and how does it relate to the Court of Protection?
Our People - Olivia Allen
A Standard Authorisation is used to lawfully deprive someone of their liberty in order to care for them. Can you challenge this? Is legal aid available?
Our People - Olivia Allen

Send a message

We will only use the information you enter in this form to contact you about your enquiry and will not share it with anyone else. Please read our Privacy Notice.

Please note that we are not accepting any new housing work at this time.