Cheshire West and Chester Council v P  UKSC 19
(1) The 'acid test' for deprivation of liberty is whether the person is under continuous supervision and control and is not free to leave. (2) The following are not relevant: (a) the person's compliance or lack of objection; (b) the relative normality of the placement (whatever the comparison made); and (c) the reason or purpose behind a particular placement. (3) Because of the extreme vulnerability of people like P, MIG and MEG, decision-makers should err on the side of caution in deciding what constitutes a deprivation of liberty.
 MHLO 16
- Includes link to press summary
- Youtube, 'UK Supreme Court Judgment 19th March 2014' (19/3/14)†. Video of Lady Hale explaining Supreme Court decision
- Alex Ruck Keene, 'Cheshire West: the Supreme Court’s right hook' (Mental Capacity Law and Policy, 19/3/14)
- O'Donnell's Solicitors, 'Cheshire West: The Supreme Court decides' (information sheet March 2014 no 2, 19/3/14)
- Mithran Samuel, 'Supreme Court ruling heralds sharp rise in Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards cases' (Community Care, 19/3/14)
- John Bingham, 'Courts braced for surge in cases of elderly locked up against their will' (Telegraph, 8/5/14)† In this report on a directions hearing, Munby P is reported as saying, 'I want to try to bring some measure of administrative order and proper process into play in the light of the ramifications of the recent judgment of the Supreme Court.'
- Local Government Lawyer, 'Number of deprivation of liberty cases "to rise ten-fold", warn councils' (10/6/14)
- Richard Gordon QC, 'Thoughts on P v Cheshire West; P & Q v Surrey County Council' (2014) 17 CCLR 416†. (Closing address at LAG Community Care conference, 5/12/14)