Cumbria, Northumberland, Tyne and Wear NHS Foundation Trust v EG  EWHC 2990 (Fam)
The judgment states: "The conditions included that he must live at The Care Home, which would undoubtedly amount to a deprivation of his liberty within the Storck tests (Storck v Germany  43 EHRR 6)." This is wrong.
Source: W Heath Robinson, Inventions (Duckworth 1973). Click image to enlarge.
- Conditional discharge/DOL guidance. HM Prison and Probation Service, 'Guidance: Discharge conditions that amount to deprivation of liberty' (January 2019) — The aim of this this operational policy is to ensure that, where appropriate, restricted patients can continue their rehabilitation in a community-based setting following the Supreme Court's decision in SSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60. For patients who lack capacity to consent to deprivation of liberty and the risk is to themselves, the solution is to allow conditional discharge with deprivation of liberty authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. For patients who lack capacity and the risk is to others, and also for patients who have capacity, the solution, if further treatment and rehabilitation could be given in a community setting, is to consider long-term s17 escorted leave (use of the inherent jurisdiction is not considered to be the correct approach). The leave of absence would be for an initial period of up to 12 months. For patients already on conditional discharge, the following options will be considered: (a) variation of conditions; (b) recall, with or without instantaneous grant of escorted leave to the current placement; (c) absolute discharge; (d) referral to tribunal. The policy mentions reassessing patients who present risks to themselves in order to see if they lack capacity after all, which may an MCA authorisation possible.