CB v Medway Council [2019] EWCOP 5

Unfair summary disposal of DOL/residence case "The simple issue is whether the Judge had sufficient information before her to discount, at this stage, any real possibility of CB returning to her home, supported by the extensive and expensive care package that is being mooted. The language of the Judgment itself, to my mind, answers this question in phrases such as “I very much doubt…. I am very sceptical…. The practicalities are…. likely to be extremely difficult….” I share the Judge’s scepticism and I also very much doubt that even with an extensive package of support a return home will be in CB’s best interest. I note too that Dr Ajiteru expressed himself in cautious terms (see para 10 above). However, scepticism and “doubt” is not sufficient to discount a proper enquiry in to such a fundamental issue of individual liberty. ... It is easy to see why the Judge took the course she did and I have a good deal of sympathy with her. She will have recognised, as do I, that the effluxion of time has had its own impact on the viability of the options in this case. However, what is involved here is nothing less than CB’s liberty. Curtailing, restricting or depriving any adult of such a fundamental freedom will always require cogent evidence and proper enquiry. I cannot envisage any circumstances where it would be right to determine such issues on the basis of speculation and general experience in other cases."

Essex search

This case's neutral citation number appears in the following newsletters:

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

  • Deprivation of liberty🔍

Date: 6/3/19🔍

Court: Court of Protection🔍

Judge(s):

Parties:

Citation number(s):

What links here:
  • No pages link to this page

Published: 15/3/19 20:56

Cached: 2024-10-11 14:32:54