The pages below are initially ordered according to the dates on which they were added to the site (most recent first). The order can be changed by clicking on the symbol beside a column heading: click on the symbol beside "Page and summary" for alphabetical order; click beside "Categories" for the order in which the cases were reported. Click on the arrow symbol again to reverse the order. Click on a page name to view the relevant page.

Page and summary	Date added to site	Categories
A PCT v LDV (2013) EWHC 272 (Fam), (2013) MHLO 6 — "The two questions considered at the hearing, which form the subject of this judgment, are (1) Do L's current circumstances amount objectively to a deprivation of liberty? (2) When assessing whether L has capacity to consent to her accommodation at WH, in circumstances which amount to a deprivation of liberty, what information is relevant to that decision?" [Summary required; detailed external summary available.]	2013-03-25	2013 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re KK; CC v KK (2012) EWHC 2136 (COP), (2012) MHLO 89 — KK was moved to a care home against her wishes, subject to a DOLS standard authorisation, and appealed under MCA 2005 s21A. (1) Having heard her oral evidence, the judge disagreed with the unanimous expert evidence that she lacked capacity to make decisions about her residence and care. (2) In light of the case law and the facts of the case, she had not been deprived of her liberty.	2012-09-27	2012 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Other capacity cases, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2012) MHLO 71 (COP) — The Court of Protection approved a consent order under which the London Borough of Hillingdon is to pay £35,000 damages to Stephen Neary.	2012-07-26	2012 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, No transcript
HSE Ireland v SF (A Minor) (2012) EWHC 1640 (Fam), (2012) MHLO 69 — "This application is made by the Health Service Executive of Ireland ('the HSE'), the statutory authority with responsibility for children taken into public care in the Irish Republic, for an urgent order under Article 20 of the Council Regulation (EC) 2201/2003 of 27th November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No.1347/2000 (commonly known as 'Brussels II Revised') in respect of a 17-year-old girl whom I shall refer to as SF. At the conclusion of the hearing on 4th May 2012, I made the order sought by the HSE. This judgment sets out the reasons for my decision." [Summary required.]	2012-06-23	2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re HA (2012) EWHC 1068 (COP), (2012) MHLO 67 — "This case comes before me for directions today. The person whose best interests have to be considered by the court is a HA. The Official Solicitor now acts for her as her litigation friend and in that capacity has continued an application under s.21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act) that was instigated before his appointment." [Summary required.]	2012-06-23	2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
EM v SC (2012) EWHC 1518 (COP), (2012) MHLO 56 — "This is an application made by the Official Solicitor on behalf of the Applicant EM, for the discharge of the latest of a series of standard authorisations made on 16 January 2012 pursuant to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The effect of the standard authorisation is to deprive EM of his liberty and oblige him to live at a nursing home, RH, rather than at the home which he had shared with his wife and son for many years." [Summary required.]	2012-06-21	2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2007) EWCA Civ 989 — Kettling/Article 5 case. [Summary required.]	2012-05-08	2007 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
A London Borough v VT (2011) EWHC 3806 (COP) — "The primary matters on which decisions need to be made by the court are: (1) Should ST live at L (or possibly some other care home type accommodation in London) or in his property at X, Nigeria; (2) If ST remains at L, is he being deprived of his liberty and, if he is being so deprived, does that remain appropriate; (3) Should ST's property and affairs deputy be AT or Mr G, the current interim independent professional deputy?" [Summary required.]	2012-03-28	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Austin v UK 39692/09 (2012) ECHR 459, (2012) MHLO 22 — Kettling did not breach Article 5. [Summary required.]	2012-03-19	2012 cases, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, No summary, Transcript
SSJ v RB (2011) EWCA Civ 1608 — The Mental Health Tribunal may not grant a conditional discharge in circumstances where the conditions would inevitably lead to an Article 5 deprivation of liberty.	2011-12-31	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
Re RK; RK v BCC (2011) EWCA Civ 1305 — (1) An adult in the exercise of parental responsibility may impose, or may authorise others to impose, restrictions on the liberty of the child. However restrictions so imposed must not in their totality amount to detention. Detention engages the Article 5 rights of the child and a parent may not lawfully detain or authorise the detention of a child. (2) The restrictions authorised by RK's parents did not amount to deprivation of liberty: they were no more than what was reasonably required to protect RK from harming herself or others within her range.	2011-12-08	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Hadzic and Suljic v Bosnia Herzegovina 39446/06 (2011) ECHR 911 — The applicants had been detained for several years in a prison 'Psychiatric Annex' which was an inappropriate institution for the detention of mental health patients, in breach of Article 5(1); the applicants were awarded compensation of €15,000 and €25,000 respectively.	2011-11-26	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWCA Civ 1257 — P's care plan at Z House did not amount to a deprivation of liberty: "At Z House and outside it P is living a life which is as normal as it can be for someone in his situation."	2011-11-09	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
LB Tower Hamlets v BB (2011) EWHC 2853 (Fam) — 'There are two sets of proceedings which concern BB. In the first, her litigation friend, sought guidance from the court under sections 16 and 18(k) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 about the conduct of proceedings concerning BB and declarations that she a) lacks capacity to conduct those proceedings and b) it is in her best interests that, in the event that her marriage to MA is a valid marriage, it be annulled or that there be a declaration that it is not recognised by the law of England and Wales. In the second, the local authority as substituted applicant seeks declarations that BB a) lacks the capacity to litigate, b) lacks capacity to decide where she should live, with whom she should have contact, who should provide her with care, what care should be provided to her and the medical treatment she should receive for her mental disorder. The court is asked to make decisions on her behalf as respects those questions which the court determines she is incapacitated to answer.' ..→	2011-11-09	2011 cases, Best interests, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
S v Estonia 17779/08 (2011) ECHR 1511 — Under domestic law S should have been heard 'promptly' after the county court ruled on her compulsory admission to hospital, but was not heard for 15 days; no adequate justification was given; this was a considerable portion of the three-month admission period; the domestic supreme court noted the procedural violation but offered no redress: overall, there had been a breach of Article 5(1), in that she was not detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Compensation of €5000 was awarded.	2011-10-06	2011 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
Cheshire West and Chester Council v P (2011) EWHC 1330 (COP) — (1) The new care plan was in P's best interests (paras 35, 39). (2) There was a deprivation of liberty (reasons given in paras 58-60). [Caution.] (3) A costs order was made against the local authority as the serious misconduct of its employees (including misleading the court under oath, failure to disclose documents and falsifying records) rendered the proceedings more costly (para 76). (4) The public interest in holding public authorities accountable amounts to a 'good reason' for naming the local authority; the scale of the possible identification of P was minor enough not to prevent this (paras 89-90). [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-06-19	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re C; C v Wigan Borough Council (2011) EWHC 1539 (Admin) — Judgment in related COP and Admin Court proceedings relating to an 18-year old with severe autism and severe learning disabilities living at a residential special school. Issues considered include deprivation of liberty and seclusion. [Summary required.]	2011-06-16	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re Steven Neary; LB Hillingdon v Steven Neary (2011) EWHC 1377 (COP) — (1) By keeping Stephen away from his home, Hillingdon breached Article 8 and Article 5(1) (notwithstanding DOLS authorisations granted during later stages). (2) By (a) failing sooner to refer the case to the COP, (b) failing sooner to appoint an IMCA, and (c) failing to conduct an effective review of the best interests assessments, Hillingdon breached Article 5(4).	2011-06-09	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re A; A v A Local Authority (2011) EWHC 727 (COP) — A, represented by the OS, appealed under MCA 2005 s21 against a DOLS standard authorisation; the other parties, including A's son, argued that A lacked capacity and that his current placement was in his best interests. The OS wanted an up-to-date assessment of capacity and a report on best interests, suggesting a COP Visitor report as being the proportionate method: the report would determine whether to dispose of the case by consent or seek further directions. Given the clear evidence, had it been a child best interests case there would have been summary judgment; however, the MCA laid down stringent conditions for deprivation of liberty, so the court cannot act as a rubber stamp and the OS must be allowed to carry out his duty of representing A as he thought fit. Having regard to the overriding objective, the COP Visitor method, and likely disposal without a further hearing, was the best way forward.	2011-03-29	2011 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re P and Q; P and Q v Surrey County Council; sub nom Re MIG and MEG (2011) EWCA Civ 190 — Judgment of Parker J upheld: neither P (aged 18, in a foster placement) nor Q (aged 17, in a small group home) was deprived of her liberty.	2011-02-28	2011 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re KM; NCC v KM (2009) COP 1145479102 — Consideration of the legal aid position in relation to deprivation of liberty reviews following final hearing.	2011-01-24	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re P (2010) COP 23/12/10 (Mostyn J) — There was effectively a presumption against deprivation of liberty (pursuant to MCA 2005 s1(6)) and, on the facts, the balance tilted in favour of P returning home pending a final hearing at which full evidence could be considered. [Summary based on counsel's case report.]	2011-01-23	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, No transcript
SSJ v RB (2010) UKUT 454 (AAC) — (1) The Tribunal may conditionally discharge with conditions which amount to a regime of detention (deprivation of liberty) to any establishment which is not defined as a 'hospital'. [Caution.] (2) The Upper Tribunal will follow High Court decisions unless it is convinced they are wrong, but where highly specialised issues arise the UT may feel less inhibited than the High Court in revisiting the issues.	2011-01-13	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Discharge conditions, Transcript, Upper Tribunal decisions
Re RK; YB v BCC (2010) EWHC 3355 (COP) — (1) Given the terms of s20(8) Children Act 1989 (that any person with parental responsibility may at any time remove the child) the provision of accommodation to a child under s20(1), (3), (4) or (5) will not ever give rise to a deprivation of liberty within the terms of Article 5. If the child is being accommodated under the auspices of a care order, interim or full, or if the child has been placed in secure accommodation under s25, then the position might be different. (2) In any event: (a) the objective element of deprivation of liberty was not remotely close to being met on the facts; (b) the subjective element was not met, as the parents had consented on RK's behalf; (c) RK's placement was at the behest of her parents and could not be imputed to the state. [Detailed summary to follow.]	2011-01-04	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWHC 3385 (Fam) — Costs judgment. "In all the circumstances, I conclude that this is a case for departing from the general rule set out in rule 157 of the Court of Protection rules, and I make an order in the following terms: (1) That the local authority should pay the costs of G, F and E, including pre-litigation costs, up to and including the first day of the hearing before me on 14th January 2010 on an indemnity basis. (2) The local authority shall pay one third of the costs of G, F and E from that date up to and including the hearing on 6 May 2010 on a standard basis. (3) All costs will be subject to a detailed assessment, if not agreed." [Summary required.]	2011-01-04	2010 cases, COP costs cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re P (Scope of Schedule A1) (2010) COP 30/6/10 — Given that a standard authorisation extends to restraining P from leaving the accommodation, it must also extend to compelling him to return.	2010-12-17	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
A County Council v MB (2010) EWHC 2508 (COP) — Court of Protection case about 'DOLS breakdowns'. [Official summary available.]	2010-10-22	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
A Primary Care Trust v P (2009) EW Misc 10 (EWCOP) — (1) P lacked capacity to decide where and with whom he should reside. (2) The removal of P from AH's care at home, as a manifest breach of Article 8, could only be proportionate if the best interests of P compellingly required it. (3) It was in P's best interests to be moved to independent living accommodation. (4) There would be a deprivation of liberty due to (a) the degree of control to be exercised by staff, (b) the constraint on P leaving if he intends to return to AH, (c) the power to refuse a request from AH for P's return, (d) the restraints on contact, (e) the fairly high degree of supervision and control. (5) Directions were given in relation to the conduct of further court reviews. (6) Contact would be dealt with separately in an Order.	2010-09-13	2009 cases, Best interests, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re MIG and MEG (2010) EWHC 785 (Fam) — Neither MIG (aged 18, in a foster placement) nor MEG (aged 17, in a small group home) was deprived of her liberty.	2010-09-03	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
BB v AM (2010) EWHC 1916 (Fam) — (1) BB was not ineligible to be deprived of her liberty within the meaning of Case E of MCA 2005 sch 1A as the psychiatric evidence was that the criteria under s2 or s3 MHA were not made out. (2) In relation to whether or not there was a deprivation of liberty: on one hand (a) BB was under sedation; staff exercised control over her care, movements, assessments and treatments; staff also exercised control over her residence and the contacts she had with other people; her family were hostile to her placement; the court was refusing to sanction the discharge of BB into the care of her parents pending the conclusion of investigations being carried out by the police; on the other hand (b) BB was apparently happy where she was; she had a degree of freedom within the hospital; in addition if she asked to leave, she was allowed to do so, although only under the supervision of accompanying staff; in conclusion (c) she was being deprived of her liberty as she was away from her family, in ..→	2010-08-09	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
G v E, Manchester City Council and F (2010) EWHC 2042 (Fam) — (1) The arguments in favour of publication of the local authority's name (openness and accountability) were truly compelling: they amounted to a "good reason" and the balancing exercise came down in favour of publication. It would be a different matter if there was any significant risk that the family might be identified, but Manchester is a large city. (2) It would inappropriate and unfair to name the social workers, because responsibility for what went wrong rested at a much higher level, including the failure to provide any or any adequate training on the introduction of the DOLS. (3) Neither the company running the establishment nor its manager would be identified: (a) they were not represented when the criticisms were made or identification was discussed; (b) it had not been necessary to make findings on the criticisms, the appropriate course being for the OS to raise the issue with the CQC which has some responsibility for such establishments; and (c) crucially, it would lead ..→	2010-08-04	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 822 — The judge was right to reject the appellant's submission that Article 5 places distinct threshold conditions which have to be satisfied before a person lacking capacity can be detained in his best interests under the MCA 2005. The MCA generally, and the DOLS in particular, plug the Bournewood gap and are Article 5 compliant.	2010-07-18	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Re A (Adult) and Re C (Child); A Local Authority v A (2010) EWHC 978 (Fam) — The circumstances of the domestic care of A and C by their families in the family home did not involve a deprivation of liberty engaging the protection of Article 5.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWCA Civ 548 — Successful renewed application for permission to appeal: it was arguable that the judge was wrong in deciding that the court may entertain an application for an order under s16 MCA 2005 that would have the effect of depriving a person of his liberty without being satisfied that his condition warrants compulsory confinement. Permission was given on other grounds also.	2010-07-08	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (ZN) v South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) CO/9457/2009 — The de facto detention of an informal incapacitous patient, and the series of detentions under s5(2), was unlawful. (Claim settled by consent.)	2010-06-28	2010 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, No transcript, Unlawful detention cases
SSHD v AP (2010) UKSC 24 — Control order/deprivation of liberty case. [Summary required.]	2010-06-18	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
Re MP; LBH v GP (2009) FD08P01058 — (1) MP, who suffered from a learning disability and lacked capacity as to residence and contact, was removed from his mother's accommodation and conveyed by the police to a care home. On the facts, there was presently no deprivation of liberty and it was in MP's best interests to remain at the care home with the existing contact regime continuing. (2) Guidance was given, subsequently approved by the President of the Family Division and Court of Protection, for cases where a vulnerable or incapacited adult requires to be removed from premises with the help of the police.	2010-05-13	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
G v E (2010) EWHC 621 (Fam) — E lacked capacity and was being deprived of his liberty at a residential unit by the local authority. They had breached his Article 5 rights by doing so without seeking a DOLS authorisation or court order, and had breached his Article 8 rights by actions including a failure properly to involve his carer. However, the court authorised continuing deprivation of liberty at the residential unit pending the final hearing as this was in his best interests. There is no threshold condition for an order under s16 depriving someone of his liberty, other than that P lacks the relevant capacity. When considering DOL there is a clear distinction between a placement at home, with family or an adult carer, and a residential placement. Hearsay from an incompetent witness is admissible but no weight would be given to E's statements.	2010-03-31	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Dorset CC v EH (2009) EWHC 784 (Fam) — The Official Solicitor's view and independent expert's opinion was that EH, an elderly lady with dementia, should be assisted to continue to live at home; notwithstanding this, the judge agreed with the local authority that it was in EH's best interests to be deprived of her liberty in residential accommodation for her own safety.	2010-03-28	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
R (Degainis) v SSJ (2010) EWHC 137 (Admin) — In relation to a 7-month delay in holding a Parole Board hearing, the SSJ admitted breach of Article 5(4) and apologised, but the claimant sought damages under Article 5(5). (1) Article 5(5) (which gives an "enforceable right to compensation") and s8 HRA 1998 (which limits the power to award damages) are not inconsistent because compensation in Article 5(5) is not limited to money. (2) The first of two grounds for the claim was that the delay increased the length of detention: because of the number of imponderables in the case it was impossible to conclude this. (3) The second ground was based on an inference that frustration and anxiety had been caused: the judge was not prepared to infer, in the absence of specific evidence, a level of frustration of distress sufficient to warrant an award of damages. (4) In general, as to whether or not to award damages, the length of the delay, the effect of the delay, and the impact on the claimant are relevant factors; the seriousness ..→	2010-02-05	2010 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript, Tribunal delay
R (Miller) v Independent Assessor (2009) EWCA Civ 609 — The Independent Assessor must have erred in law by failing to make proper use of the civil law awards, because without much explanation he arrived at an award which is irrationally low (namely £55,000 for over 4 years' detention following wrongful conviction for murder).	2009-12-09	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
DCC v KH (2009) COP 11729380 — (1) A DOLS standard authorisation was sufficient to return P on the long journey from contact sessions to the residential accommodation: the Code of Practice paragraphs saying that conveyance may require a court order only apply where no SA is in place. (2) It was inappropriate to seek an anticipatory declaration for the use of force, as MCA 2005 s5 and s6 permitted restraint. (3) The interim residence order should be enough to persuade the police to facilitate P's return.	2009-11-12	2009 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Transcript
Re Brammall; W Primary Care Trust v TB (2009) EWHC 1737 (Fam) — TB was eligible to be deprived of her liberty under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (either under DOLS provisions or s16 court order): she might have been ineligible under Case E, but she was not a "mental health patient" because her care home did not fall within the definition of a hospital.	2009-07-23	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWHC 1128 (Admin) — Condition of discharge not to leave without escort not unlawful on the facts.	2009-04-12	2002 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (2009) UKHL 5 — (1) The difference between deprivation of and restriction upon liberty is merely one of degree or intensity, not one of nature or substance; it is highly sensitive to the facts of each case. (2) Where the purpose of the measure is relevant, it must be to enable a balance to be struck between what the restriction seeks to achieve and the interests of the individual; there is room, even in the case of fundamental rights, for a pragmatic approach which takes full account of all the circumstances; however, in general, purpose is relevant, not to whether the Article 5 threshold is crossed, but to justification under 5(1)(a) to (e). (3) Measures of crowd control will fall outside the ambit of Article 5 so long as they are not arbitrary, i.e. they must be resorted to in good faith, they must be proportionate, and they must not be enforced for longer than is reasonably necessary; the confinement by the police of the claimant for seven hours in Oxford Circus in order to avoid physical ..→	2009-01-29	2009 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
R (Abu-Rideh) v SSHD (2007) EWHC 2237 (Admin) — The claimant's appeal under s10(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 against the modification of his control order (that the cumulative effect in his changed circumstances, in particular because he now lives alone and his perceived declining mental health, had led to breaches of Articles 5, 3 and 8) failed.	2009-01-19	2007 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Transcript
Salford City Council v GJ, re GJ NJ and BJ (Incapacitated Adults) (2008) EWHC 1097 (Fam) — The appropriate safeguards to be put in place when the court authorises the placement of an incapacitated adult in circumstances engaging Article 5 of the Convention.	2008-12-28	2008 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Other capacity cases, Transcript
IH v UK 17111/04 (2005) — The delay following the deferred conditional discharge decision did not breach Article 5(1), since if no psychiatric supervision could be found then continued detention was the only option, Johnson v UK 22520/93 (1997) ECHR 88 distinguished; the House of Lords had been right in concluding that the Tribunal's inability to reconsider the case in light of the inability to achieve the conditions disclosed a breach of Article 5(4); however, since the domestic court had acknowledged the breach, IH was no longer a "victim" of a violation of Article 5(4); therefore no issues arose under Article 5(5) and, in any event, there is no absolute right to compensation, and the Lords' decision not to award damages was not arbitrary or unreasonable. The application was inadmissible.	2008-11-29	2005 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, ECHR, Transcript
R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1998) UKHL 24 — Bournewood gap.	2008-09-13	1998 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997) EWCA Civ 2879 — Bournewood gap.	2008-09-13	1997 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
R (L) v Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust (1997) EWHC Admin 850 — Bournewood gap.	2008-09-13	1997 cases, Deprivation of liberty, No summary, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re PH (2002) EWCA Civ 1868 — Conditions of discharge are lawful so long as they do not amount to a deprivation of liberty: in this case, a condition that the patient could not leave a hostel unescorted was lawful; so too could be a condition of residence at a hospital (rough summary)	2007-02-06	2000 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
JE v DE and Surrey County Council (2006) EWHC 3459 (Fam) — In determining whether a person is deprived of his liberty, the crucial question is whether he is is “free to leave” the institution, not only for approved outings but also permanently to go or live where or with whom he chooses; there can be deprivation of liberty in the absence of a lock or physical barrier, and it can equally be caused by the misuse or misrepresentation of even non-existent authority	2007-01-20	2006 cases, Deprivation of liberty, Detailed summary, Other capacity cases, Transcript
R (G) v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2004) EWHC 2193 (Admin) — The Tribunal were right to conclude that the conditions which the claimant patient contended for (continued residence at Thornford Park) would be a deprivation, rather than a restriction, of his liberty. The patient's consent to this continuing deprivation of liberty would not confer jurisdiction on the Tribunal.'	2006-04-10	2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript
R (SSHD) v MHRT, re MP (2004) EWHC 2194 — Conditions attached to conditional discharge of restricted patients must not be so severe as to deprive the patient of his liberty (as opposed to merely restricting it). In this case the condition that the patient may not leave a hostel without escorts deprived him of his liberty. Re PH distinguished: the purpose of the restrictions (and the hope in PH that the need for them might diminish) was different.	2006-04-10	2004 cases, Brief summary, Deprivation of liberty, Discharge conditions, Transcript