Re SM: Peterborough City Council v Mother [2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)

No DOL if cannot leave because of disabilities The High Court decided that SM was not deprived of her liberty under Article 5 because the reason that she could not leave was her profound disabilities rather than any action of the State (whether by restraining her or by failing to meet the a positive obligations to enable her to leave). She was both physically incapable of exercising her right to liberty, and mentally incapable of asserting it. The Supreme Court in Cheshire West did not deal with the situation of a child such as SM who is incapable of leaving because of a combination of her physical and mental disabilities rather than by reason of any restraints placed upon her. The judge noted: "On a conceptual level it is difficult to see how one can be deprived of something that one is incapable of doing." This common sense approach will not be popular in the legal profession.

Essex

This case has been summarised on page 8 of 39 Essex Chambers, 'Mental Capacity Report' (issue 138, April 2024).

CASES DATABASE

Full judgment: BAILII

Subject(s):

Deprivation of liberty🔍
Deprivation of liberty - children🔍 See also: Category:Deprivation of liberty

Date: 6/4/24🔍

Court: High Court (Family Division)🔍

Cites:

Cheshire West and Chester Council v P [2014] UKSC 19

Cited by:

Judge(s):

Lieven🔍

Parties:

Peterborough City Council🔍
Mother🔍
Father🔍
SM🔍

Citation number(s):

[2024] EWHC 493 (Fam)^B

What links here:

Published: 6/2/25 13:09

Cached: 2025-03-22 00:08:48