Observing a Failed Re X hearing: “it sounds like ‘Cassie’ is being unlawfully deprived by contact restrictions”

By Eleanor Tallon, 31st October 2023

My previous blog post on ‘Failed Re X’ described the legal meaning of the term, and the processes whereby these cases get to court.  This blog post follows up on that by reporting on a ‘Failed Re X’ hearing (COP 13266959) I observed on 9th October 2023 before District Judge Hart, sitting remotely at First Avenue House in Holborn, London.    

As I explained in my previous blog post, ‘Re X’ is the term used to refer to the streamlined process through which the Court of Protection (CoP) can authorise a ‘Deprivation of Liberty’ (DoL), as established in the case of Re X and Others (Deprivation of Liberty) [2014] EWCOP 25.

Essentially, the streamlined process is designed for non-contentious cases which allow for judicial review without an oral hearing (or ‘on the papers’). 

Sometimes, though, ‘Re X’ applications are made and the court decides, upon reviewing the evidence, that this streamlined process is not appropriate and the case needs to be heard. According to the listing, that’s what happened in this case. It’s listed as a “Failed Re X”.

The aim of this blog is to provide readers with a more in-depth understanding of the sort of case that may be ‘called in’ for further enquiry in a “Failed Re X” procedure. I will go through my observation of the hearing, followed by a reflective summary of the main issues which arose. 

The case concerns a protected party, initialised as ‘CLG’ in the listing above, who I will refer to as ‘Cassie’ (not her real name). 

The Local Authority (London Borough of Barnet, the ‘Applicant’, represented by Deanaloy Grant) was seeking an order from the court to authorise “a deprivation of liberty in relation to care and residence arrangements”.

Cassie was joined as a party to the proceedings (1^st Respondent), represented by Lucinda France-Hayhurst on behalf of the Official Solicitor. 

Ms H (Cassie’s mother) is also joined as the 2^nd Respondent and represents herself as a litigant-in-person.

Limited information was provided on the background to the case, but during the hearing I learnt that Cassie has Learning Disabilities, lives in a single occupancy flat and is supported continuously by her service providers (which includes support in her home and at a day centre). 

Ms H is unhappy with the care provided, the lack of support provided for Cassie to go out in the community; and she objects to restrictions placed on contact with her daughter.  

Her verbal evidence contradicts the Local Authority’s position, which is that there are no restrictions on contact between mother and daughter.  They have not sought legal authorisation for restrictions around Cassie’s contact with Ms H.

Lucinda France-Hayhurst (Counsel for Cassie) highlighted to the Judge that “it sounds like Cassie is being unlawfully deprived by contact restrictions. A statement in this regard is needed in a timely order so that this can be discussed at the round table meeting and a consent order sought”.

The Judge agreed and directed that a statement must be filed within a week, with a further application made within the 3 weeks, to request authorisation of any contact restrictions imposed. 

Due to the severity of implications around unlawful contact restrictions, this was to be acted upon as a priority, but this was one of several thorny issues to be scrutinised during the proceedings.  

The disagreements and challenges manifest in this hearing make it clear why this case was not suitable for a streamlined “Re X” decision ‘on the papers’.

The hearing

The start of the hearing was delayed allowing time for the Official Solicitor to consider the Position Statement from the Trust and the Draft Order, which was then submitted (“in essence, agreed”) to the Judge.  

When the hearing started at around 11.40am (unfortunately, without an opening summary as advised by the former Vice President of the Court of Protection), Counsel for Cassie went through the Draft Order (not least for the benefit of Cassie’s  mother), explaining that it sets out the following:

• The signposting for the next hearings.
• Details on the background to the application and why it was brought. 
• That there are no restrictions on Cassie’s contact with family. 
• That the court directs a separate disclosure of social care records. 
• An interim declaration that it’s in Cassie’s best interests to live where she is living, subject to the arrangements, until further exploration of the circumstances can be taken into account, and that the issues raised by Ms H can be explored. 

Counsel for Cassie then went on to discuss further details around evidence gathering, namely the disclosure from the Local Authority, which would need to include minutes of care planning and best interest meetings held with Ms H in 2023, and other relevant social care records. It was agreed that the date could be amended to the 13th of November 2023 for the disclosure. 

Counsel then explained that the Order would also seek evidence from Ms H by the 30th of October 2023. It was highlighted that Ms H had filed a statement previously, but a further statement was being requested in response to the application sought to authorise the care arrangements with any comments on Cassie’s welfare. 

Counsel emphasised the point that: “Ms H has the opportunity to set out her concerns within the statement, rather than in a large volume of emails going back and forth and providing piece meal evidence” and she then turned back to the evidence required from the Applicant.

The Local Authority has an obligation to file a statement which refers to:

• The staff ratios, as it is unclear as to the appropriate ratios needed to ensure safety and quality of life. 
• The local authority would need to provide recommendations on community access and who will support Cassie on trips, and they are to provide a timetable and activity planner. This would provide a better idea of when it is best for Cassie to be visited. 
• Also, an update on her presentation and how to optimise her time at the placement. 
• A plan on how to optimise the use of her mobility car, which ought to be used for trips and drives. 
• An update on diet, which was an issue raised by Ms H, and the provision of a meal plan. 
• An analysis of quality regarding her personal care, again, Ms H has raised hygiene concerns. 

She further explained that an approval was sought for a third-party disclosure for records on “the complaints made by neighbours about Cassie sounding distressed at night and any fallout in relation to the tenancy”.

She then went through additional points to be addressed by the Local Authority:

Counsel for Cassie: There would need to be consideration of multiple occupancy options, taking account of the level of the level of care that Cassie needs, and an exploratory search for alternative options. The search should include opportunities for Cassie to live with others as she is sociable and gets on well with peers and this should be included in the bundle of options with a best interest recommendation given. The plan is for a round table meeting to be arranged for the week commencing the 13th of November, this would be after the assessments, updates and disclosure have been provided. 

Judge: That date may have to go back due to the Local Authority disclosure date.

Counsel for Cassie proposed that the round table meeting could go ahead on the 13^th November as the disclosure request shouldn’t affect their ability to engage in a round table meeting. She then requested a further hearing date for the 18th of December 2023.

The Judge inquired as to the disclosure requested from the Local Authority: “Would that show discrepancies as to the planning for activities in the community and the actuality of it?”

Ms H indicated that she was unclear as to what the Judge was asking, so the Judge further explained her comments: “It’s one thing to have a plan in place which I can approve of, but it’s in the ability, day-to-day, to carry out that plan. That I think is where the success will be carried out in this case”.

Counsel for Cassie: The idea is a 3-pronged approach. The care provider records will show to what extent the plan is working whereas the assessments and care plans from the Local Authority may not inform entirely if the plan works. The Local Authority thinks things are going well and the two to one support is being provided. But we’ve heard differently from Ms H. The Local Authority disclosure would provide information as to whether the planned support needs to change. It would inform as to what decisions were made and as to why the restrictions were required.

Judge: My concern is around what is actually going on at the moment. The disclosure needs to encompass what’s actually going on. It must be in the records. Will it include records of trips out? 

Counsel for the Applicant: I would believe that should be the case.

Judge: The care planning and the best interest meetings minutes will be useful, but will the social care records include day-to-day records from the providers? My concern is we need to get to grips with what’s going on, on the ground.

At this point Ms H intervened with her concerns.

Ms H: How I know that Cassie wasn’t going out is there was no petrol being bought for the past nine months and the mileage hadn’t changed, so she’s not using the car for accessing the community. OK, people say there are no restrictions, but I can only visit on Saturdays as that’s the only day she has two to one care apart from Wednesdays. But I work and I have to visit her in the property. No carers can come out with us as they haven’t been out with her before. I feel incarcerated with her in the tiny flat and I’m nervous about being in the flat with carers when false accusations have been made against me.I feel vulnerable. I would like to take Cassie out. I know she has the option to come out with me, but the carers have never been out with her, and I don’t want to have to supervise 2 university students. I’d prefer to take her out with just one carer, in case I struggle, but I don’t want to have two carers accompanying us. I also have two other children and my mother isn’t well, so my time is limited.

Judge: I understand the matters are to do with practicality. Clearly the car is a good example. If carers don’t have driving licences, the car isn’t going to be used.

Ms H: Can I give Some background.

Judge: I don’t think you need to at this stage. I’m trying to focus at the moment on whether the disclosure will give useful evidence. 

Counsel for the Applicant: I’ve just had an update that the disclosure from the learning disability team will include records from the provider.

Judge: So that confirms it. We also need to get updated statements from the parties to ensure we can all consider evidence in a structured manner. Are you content with the order Ms H?

Ms H: Apart from the fact that I do have limited contact. 

Counsel for the Applicant: Ms H is able to visit around her daughter’s activities. Ms H says due to working and other commitments she cannot attend on the other times.

Ms H: Cassie goes to the day centre every day other than Wednesday, but I could pop in after 5pm during the week. 

Counsel for the Applicant: Cassie has wind down in the evening, where she gets ready, showered, and prepared for bed. So, it may not be appropriate.

Ms H: She goes to bed as soon as she gets back from the day centre and then when she goes to bed at 8pm, she’s up all night because she’s had long naps after the day centre and the carers use drugs to sedate her. She sleeps in the day because there’s no activities. It’s out of boredom and she’ll take herself to bed. If I visited after 5pm my visits would benefit her and stimulate her, she may sleep better at night. 

Judge: I understand, but it’s not something we can sort out at this hearing. Discussions are needed with those at the placement to try and resolve what is needed. For Cassie, she needs structure and reliability. On the part of the placement, they need to offer some degree of flexibility.

Counsel for the Applicant: My client informs me that the arrangements are that Ms H can visit through the week, but she must call prior to any visits, and that they are not drugging her.

Ms H: Not anymore, because I complained. I want to take her out with a 1 to 1 carer, not two to one. 

Judge: I don’t think this is very productive for today.

The Judge’s screen then freezes. Court admin attempts to address the technical issues and after a few minutes the Judge is rejoined by video link. 

Judge: There were some technical problems at my end, but essentially it sounds as if the best way forward is set out in the Draft Order and there will be an opportunity to discuss the issues and Ms H can put forward her views in formal evidence.

Dates were then discussed for a further hearing to take place in January, court admin proposed the 16th of January 2024 at 2pm. This was agreed by all parties. 

Ms H: It’s just very sad that I’ll have another Christmas where I can’t see my daughter.

Judge: There will be two round table meetings before then, which gives you the opportunity to work with those involved to try and see if you can identify ways to move forward. Is there anything else we need to cover today?

Counsel for P: There is one other thing. I was under the impression that there were no restrictions on contact between Cassie and Ms H, but the position appears to be different. The local authority has suggested it is right that Ms H should call in advance of any visits, and there needs to be two to one staff present while she is in the placement due to the previous issues raised. That appears to be restrictive. I think we need something in a timely order by way of a statement from the Local Authority. 

Ms H: I’ve hardly seen Cassie in 2 and half years and it’s only going to be me that takes her out. (Ms H becomes visibly upset). 

Judge: I want this issue to be looked at. The order says there are no restrictions on contact.

Counsel for the Applicant: My client is happy to reword the position on contact in the Draft Order and that queries on contact will be addressed within a statement if that’s needed.

Ms H: I was told that Cassie is going to begin doing activities on Saturday. That’s my one day a week to see her.

Judge: Everyone will get together within the round table meetings and decisions will be taken as to what’s needed regarding her support, activities and contact. Ms Grant, you need to be clear to the court as to what the restrictions actually are. Let me look at your evidence. 

The Judge reviews the papers and reads from the evidence: ‘An update on family contact and freedom to visit’. 

Judge: There needs to be a statement to address any restrictions on contact and the reasons why these have been put in place. You need to address the history so the court can consider (a) what the position is and (b) why this is the position. 

Counsel for Cassie: I do apologise, but if I may make a further comment. It sounds like Cassie is being unlawfully deprived by contact restrictions. A statement in this regard is needed in a timely order so that this can be discussed at the round table meeting and a consent order sought. It would be more appropriate for this to happen before the 13th of November.

Judge: I can see the need for the Witness Statement but whether it can be done prior to the 13th of November?

Counsel for Cassie: I would hope that it could be addressed in a quicker time frame.

Judge: Ms Grant, when could that be done by?

Counsel for the Applicant: I’m awaiting instructions… (short pause whilst instructions are taken). In one week, the local authority shall file the witness statement. 

Judge: The statement will be provided by the 16th of October, which sets out any restrictions on contact with Cassie, and the reasons that those are in place. Ms H will have that before she is due to put her Witness Statement in.

The Judge addresses Counsel for Cassie: Are you content to file a COP9 application? 

Counsel for Cassie: It would be appropriate for the local authority to issue the COP9, and they would need to consider Cassie’s capacity around contact if that’s not already been done.

Counsel for the Applicant: I will need to check the position on capacity around contact.

Judge: So, the Local Authority will issue a COP9 application to seek authorisation on restrictions around contact and that is to be supported by relevant capacity evidence, no later than the 30th of October. Does that then deal with everything?

Counsel for Cassie: I’m just wondering whether we can push back the Witness Statement from Ms H so she can consider the application on contact restrictions.

It was agreed that Ms H would have until 6th of November 2023 to file her Witness Statement. 

Ms H: What should I include in my statement?

Judge: Well, two things really. It’s acknowledged that there are restrictions on contact. And this has to be dealt with formally by application to the Court. I hope that provides some reassurance. The Witness Statement also needs to include anything you want to say about the arrangements being authorised, including the restrictions on contact. So essentially, is the placement right for Cassie?  Is the care regime appropriate? Your views on activities and outings and any restrictions on contact, put all of that down if you can. 

Ms H: They now want an automatic car. Which will take three months to purchase, and they will only have one driver. This is the problem… 

Judge: That’s something you can put into your witness statement. The date to file it is the 6th of November. I think we may finally be here in terms of things that need to be raised this morning. Thank you very much to everyone and I’m now going to leave the hearing. Good day everyone. 

At 12:36 the hearing ended.

Reflective Summary

There are four main points which stood out to me when observing this case, and these are the areas I will focus on in terms of my reflections:

• Contact restrictions
• Care plan scrutiny
• Participation of Cassie and Representation for the 2^nd Respondent (Cassie’s mother)
• The case of London Borough of Barnet v JDO & Ors [2019] EWCOP 47

1. Contact Restrictions

It struck me that there were various decisions about care and contact being overseen by the Local Authority (such as the need for 2 carers to be present for Cassie’s visits with her mother) which understandably from her mother’s perspective, created a barrier for her to have contact with her daughter. 

It seems that this 2:1 arrangement followed ‘accusations’ being made. It’s unclear what the nature of these were, but clearly Ms H has also raised several concerns and the relationship between Ms H and the provider did not appear to be a positive one.

Sadly, Cassie’s views were starkly absent within this hearing, so I was left wondering what Cassie’s thoughts were around contact with her mother. Would Cassie prefer ‘wind-down’ time in the evening or more opportunity to see her mother? Would this cause disruption to her routine or make her happier? 

A capacity assessment in this regard may shed some light onto these questions, and it would clarify the basis on which a decision could be reached. Without capacity on the decision established, there would be no legitimate best interest decision made and no liable defence for any restrictions in place.

I was impressed by the tenacity of Cassie’s Counsel in advocating Cassie’s rights, and by the Judge’s response in ensuring the Local Authority brought an urgent statement to outline the details of the restrictions imposed; to consider Cassie’s  capacity to decide on contact arrangements; and to ensure that the necessity and proportionality of any restrictions could be fully investigated. 

The restrictions which are imposed as part of a person’s support arrangements may trigger Article 5 right to liberty (ECHR), due to the level of supervision and control over movement and freedom. Where this amounts to a Deprivation of Liberty (DoL), legal authorisation for the DoL must be sought.

However, being deprived of liberty, invariably impacts on a person’s opportunity for contact with family and the outside world. In some cases, providers make specific decisions that restrict contact, for example, where there are safeguarding concerns and the person lacks capacity to decide on contact with a specific person, such contact might be entirely prevented by the provider in the person’s best interests.

But specific restrictions on contact can only be implemented with the authority of the court (save for emergencies where an application is being sought).

Furthermore, contact restrictions are not covered by a DoL authorisation. Restrictions on contact fall under Article 8 (ECHR):

Right to respect for private and family life 

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Ruck Keene (2018) comments on the case of SR v A Local Authority [2018] EWCOP 36, which concerned a woman whose contact with her husband was restricted by the Local Authority with no court authorisation to do so:

It highlights, or should highlight, the thinness of the legal ice afforded to public bodies seeking to restrict contact without the authority of the court given the clear interference with the Article 8 rights of those subject to the restrictions. Although “Article 8 of the Convention contains no explicit procedural requirements, the decision-making process involved in measures of interference must be fair and such as to ensure due respect of the interests safeguarded by Article 8”.

The case of Re Briggs (Incapacitated Person) [2017] EWCA Civ 1169 also illustrates the significance of contact with family, and how failing to facilitate regular contact can tip the balance in terms of whether a placement is in the person’s best interests:

95.  Contact, for example, is an issue capable of going to the heart of whether being detained is in a person’s best interests; it may be that in an ideal world P’s best interests would be served by a deprivation of liberty in the form of her living in a care home properly looked after, where the appropriate medication regime will be adhered to and P will have a proper balanced diet. Desirable as that may be, and such a regime may well provide the optimum care outcome for P, but it may also be the case that unless, regular contact can be facilitated to a particular family member, the distress and confusion caused to P would be such that it would be no longer in her best interests to be detained, and that what might amount to sub optimum physical care would ultimately be preferable to no, or insufficient contact….” 

Cassie’s case certainly serves to reiterate the point that providers and public authorities need to be diligent and follow all due processes, whilst considering the full spectrum of the person’s rights – including their right to family life, which needs to be safeguarded. 

2. Care Plan Scrutiny

When a Deprivation of Liberty is identified, the process of independent review of the care arrangements cannot be a ‘light touch’ approach. As the Judge emphasised, there must be an explicit breakdown of what restrictions are imposed; the identified risks which make these necessary; and what else has been considered to minimise the risks, which would be less intrusive on the person’s rights (proportionality).

This entails a thorough analysis of the severity and likelihood of harm, and why the proposed restrictions are the only foreseeable, sustainable way of maintaining safety and well-being.

The care and support plan drawn up by the Local Authority is not the operational care plan, it focuses on the person’s assessed needs and the outcomes which they wish to achieve. Where the person is receiving formal care to meet their needs, a ‘day to day’ support plan is produced by the provider, which should explicate what, when and how care is provided to achieve those outcomes. Additionally, risk assessments should be in place which evidence the rationale behind restrictive care practices.

Therefore, it is imperative that the Judge has access to this level of information, which goes beyond what may normally be available in the statutory care and support plan. The Judge needs to see the grainier details “to get to grips with what’s going on, on the ground”.

To some, it could be seen that the court is tasked with micro-management of a care plan, and there may be some debate as to whether this is best use of court time, as it should be the responsibility of the provider and the commissioning body to ensure that the care plan meets the legal and statutory requirements around care standards and human rights.

But in practice, support plans may fall short of this, and often it is these types of cases that come to the attention of the court for further scrutiny.

If solicitors and the court asking questions about a care plan amounts to micromanagement then what is the point of them being involved at all? If the court is simply going to agree with the professionals without any probing of the evidence then how is it any protection at all against inappropriate use of public powers? If that argument was followed through then all the court could do is ask if there is a care plan (Local Authority Lawyer, 2022).

I was reassured that the Judge in Cassie’s case was intent upon seeking specific evidence to address the discrepancies between the care planning and the actual implementation. In effect, it was highlighted that a support plan may sound wonderful, but the real question is whether the plan is being carried out effectively.

The proof is in the pudding.

It seems that the initial application made by the Local Authority did not provide the level of detail required for the Judge to reliably review the arrangements. It also seems that the guidance provided by 39 Essex Chambers (in reference to making appropriate use of the Re X application process) was not followed: 

The public body making the application will therefore have to make sure that it has obtained (and where necessary worked with the care provider to improve) the care provider’s care plan before making the application so as to ensure that it addresses the matters set out above. Given that a more restrictive care regime will need to be sanctioned by the court, applicants may want to consider incorporating contingency arrangements into the care plan so as to minimise the need for judicial micro-management (39 Essex Chambers, 2022)

3. Participation of P (Cassie) and Representation for the 2^nd Respondent (Cassie’s mother)

Cassie was represented by the Official Solicitor, which may have been the case due to there being no one else considered appropriate to act as her Litigation Friend. It appeared to me, that Cassie’s mother would have been willing to act, given that she was a party to the proceedings, but the issues around ‘allegations being made’ against her could have ruled this out.

It was unclear what Cassie’s wishes and feelings were about her support and living arrangements, though it was mentioned that complaints had been made by neighbours about Cassie sounding distressed at night. Without further explanation provided, I queried whether this could be interpreted as an objection to some elements of the care plan, or as an objection to the entirety of the placement?

The Official Solicitor “isn’t pushing for a move”, but other options were being explored. Additionally, round table meetings were due to take place to review “what’s needed regarding her support, activities and contact” which would hopefully take account of Cassie’s wishes and her mother’s views.

Although Ms H was not acting on behalf of Cassie, her input provides a valuable dimension in terms of giving further insight into the arrangements (and potentially Cassie’s wishes and feelings), from someone who knows her well. 

I acknowledge that Ms H was representing herself and there was a visible power imbalance when considering Ms H’s unfamiliarity with the court processes, and her emotional investment into the hearing. It was positive to see that both Counsel for Cassie and the Judge were accommodating and attempted to explain things more clearly, though this had to be balanced with retaining a focus on the subject matter at hand.

It seemed that Ms H would have benefited from a formal legal representative to support her, but this may not have been at her disposal, possibly due to the costs involved for appointing a legal professional.

To give an example of the costs involved in Court of Protection proceedings, I have referred to research by Series et al (2017), although the costs are likely to have increased since this was published:

Using data on the median costs of in house legal staff, independent experts and counsel, we estimate that local authorities could expect a typical s21A DoLS review to cost them in the region of £10,000, and a personal welfare case in the region of £13,000. Our findings do, however, indicate that the cost of Re X streamlined procedure applications are substantially lower than other kinds of welfare case. This may be because of the streamlined procedure itself, but it could also be because such applications should be non-contentious. 

The Ministry of Justice told us that the median cost of a legal aid certificate for a medical treatment case was £7,672, for a non-medical case was £20,874 and for a deprivation of liberty case was £7,288. For self-funding litigants, who would pay a higher rate for legal advice and representation, the costs of welfare litigation are likely to be substantially higher than this. 

The high public and private cost of welfare litigation in the CoP is a major barrier to accessing justice and is likely to have a significant chilling effect on bringing disputes and serious issues before the CoP.

4. The case of London Borough of Barnet v JDO & Ors [2019] EWCOP 47

In my previous blog on ‘Failed Re X’, I referred to the  case LB Barnet v JDO & Ors [2019] EWCOP 47 which provides an example of a case where a Local Authority was heavily criticised for their failure to provide accurate information to the court.

It was interesting that the ‘Failed Re X’ case I observed related to the same Local Authority (London Borough of Barnet). 

I reflected that had this case not been screened as unsuitable for the Re X process and subsequently heard in court, it may have been that the issues raised around unlawful contact restrictions would have been left unaddressed. At the point of the directions hearing the Local Authority had maintained there were no restrictions on contact, and it was only through judicial scrutiny that these restrictions were acknowledged.

I wondered whether Cassie’s mother’s objections to the arrangements had been made explicit when the Local Authority filed their original COPDOL11 (Re X application)? Certainly, applicants are obligated to consult with those interested in the person’s welfare and should be forthcoming around any known concerns: 

Paragraph 33 of PD11A reflects these principles:

· it specifies that the duty extends to “all facts and matters that may have an impact on the court’s decision whether to authorise the deprivation of liberty”; 

·  it directs the applicant to “scrutinise the circumstances of the case” and “clearly identify” factors needing particular judicial scrutiny or suggestive that proposed arrangements may not be in P’s best interests or the least restrictive option or otherwise indicative that the order should not be made; and

· it specifically includes a requirement to explain why persons of a relevant category have not been consulted.

In Re X (Court of Protection Procedure) [2015] EWCA Civ 599, Black LJ identified (at para 100) potential problems with the streamlined process:

It depends entirely on the reliability and completeness of the information transmitted to the court by those charged with the task.In many cases, this will be the very person/organisation seeking authorisation for P to be deprived of his liberty and the possibility of a conflict of interest is clear. 

To conclude, the ‘Failed Re X’ case I observed gives a further example of why a full and frank disclosure is required when making an application to the court to authorise a Deprivation of Liberty. The application must contain a detailed, up-to-date description of all the measures that restrict the person’s liberty, autonomy, and any wider implications. Most critically, the Applicant must be clear and honest.

Eleanor Tallon is an Independent Social Worker and Best Interests Assessor. She can be contacted via her website mcaprofessional.co.uk and found on LinkedIn. She also Tweets @Eleanor_Tallon