07/10/15 (1): Deprivation of liberty case.North Yorkshire County Council v MAG (2015) MHLO 69 (COP) — The Council sought a declaration that it was in MAG's best interests (a) to be deprived of his liberty and reside in his current placement, and (b) for the Corporate Director of Health and Adult services to enter into a tenancy agreement on MAG's behalf in relation to the current placement. (1) The reference in Re MN (An Adult) (2015) EWCA Civ 411, (2015) MHLO 41 to the ability of the Court of Protection to explore the care plan put forward by a public authority and the inability of the Court to compel a public authority to agree to a care plan which it is not willing to implement does not apply when the issue is the right to liberty under Article 5. (2) The placement at which MAG had been deprived of his liberty for 9 years did not meet his needs (for instance, there was insufficient room to manoeuvre a wheelchair indoors, so he had to mobilise on his hands and knees causing physical problems including bursitis and a recurring fungal infection in his thigh) and the council had not taken the steps necessary to ensure that there was no breach of its obligations. The court therefore refused to continue an interim deprivation of liberty authorisation.
30/09/15 (6): Deputyship case.DGP Law v DGHP (2015) EWCOP 58, (2015) MHLO 67 — "This is a reconsideration of a decision made on the papers on 16 February 2015 by District Judge Bellamy, who dismissed the respondents' objections to the applicant's application to be appointed as her mother's deputy for property and affairs."
30/09/15 (5): Court of Protection DOL procedure case.Re NRA (2015) EWCOP 59, (2015) MHLO 66 — "I have ten cases before me seeking welfare orders under s. 16(2)(a) of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the MCA). The welfare orders are sought to authorise the deprivation of liberty that, it is common ground, is being, or will be, created by the implementation of the regime of care, supervision, control and support (the care package) upon which the welfare orders are based. If it had been thought that the care packages did not result in a deprivation of liberty it is highly likely that the relevant public authorities would have relied on s. 5 of the MCA and no application to the Court of Protection would have been made. When the cases were transferred to me they were regarded as test cases on the directions that should be given for their determination and in particular on whether the subject of the proceedings (P) should be a party."
30/09/15 (4): Medical best interests case.Wye Valley NHS Trust v B (2015) EWCOP 60, (2015) MHLO 65 — "The issue in this case is whether it is lawful for the doctors treating Mr B, a 73-year-old gentleman with a severely infected leg, to amputate his foot against his wishes in order to save his life. Without the operation, the inevitable outcome is that he will shortly die, quite possibly within a few days. If he has the operation, he may live for a few years. Mr B also has a long-standing mental illness that deprives him of the capacity to make the decision for himself. The operation can therefore only be lawfully performed if it is in his best interests."
30/09/15 (2): International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law: further call for papers (September 2015). The editors and publisher of this journal are making a supplemental call for papers. The planned publication date for the first edition is the end of December 2015/early January 2016. The deadline for further papers to be considered for the first edition is 30/10/15. For further details, see International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law