Even when P says they’re happy with their residence, and that they do not want to leave, and welcome the fact that the doors are kept locked, this still amounts to a deprivation of liberty. It is this element of deprivation of liberty that the Supreme Court will be considering in October 2025. The key question is whether a person can, in effect, “consent” to living arrangements that would otherwise constitute a “deprivation of liberty” through the expression of their wishes and feelings, irrespective of whether or not they have the mental capacity to consent to those arrangements.
Author Archives: openjusticecourtofprotection
“Let me talk about my partner’s death”– Court of Protection told
By Daniel Cloake, 23rd September 2025 Editorial note: Judgment in this case has now been published: Re Carl Gardner, Deceased (Duration of Transparency Order). This blog is reprinted, with permission (and a few minor changes) from Daniel’s own website: mouseinthecourt.co.uk. Daniel observed this hearing (COP 20006397) in person in Court 33 at the Royal CourtsContinue reading ““Let me talk about my partner’s death”– Court of Protection told”
Authenticity of a “Living Will”
None of us would want our loved ones to be placed (like AB’s fiancee) in the position of having to defend the authenticity of our written documents after we’ve lost capacity. We want to produce documents that are sufficiently robust to avoid this kind of challenge
Should surgery be delayed while the legal framework relating to capacity is established?
SJ Hilder’s view was that it would be wrong for planned surgery to be delayed while legal framework issues were resolved. The judge ran this hearing with clinical precision, setting out clearly what her expectations were and fixing firm deadlines by which actions needed to have been completed, and making it evident to representatives when she was less than pleased with their response (eg “it’s not helpful to be told a party has not yet made its mind up”).
An emergency statutory will for a dying man
This is a situation that could confront any of us – and our partners, ex-partners, family and friends. … Another lesson from this case is the need to keep wills under review. One option open to Mr R when he still had testamentary capacity may have been either to change, re-affirm or clarify his will after his partner ended their relationship.
Decision to remove a professional deputy (without a fact-finding hearing): DJ Clarke in action
I’ve observed a lot of different judges in a lot of different hearings. If I were P, or a member of P’s family, DJ Clarke is a judge I’d be very happy to have hearing my case.
Safeguarding Mum: The “vile” judgment and the daughter’s story
“Can we stress in your piece that social services need to listen to the families. That’s what I want to get out of this. They need to listen and understand that we have their best interests at heart. We know the person better than anybody else – certainly better than social services that just poke their noses in and misinterpret.”
Mother refuses to return P to the UK in defiance of court order – but there’s no application for committal for contempt of court: What more can the court do?
In defiance of a court order and to prevent Miranda being temporarily moved out of the family home for assessment purposes, Miranda’s mother took her to Jamaica in early February 2023.
At the margins of ‘Deprivation of Liberty’: On not losing myself – care and thoughtfulness from HHJ Beckley
That experience has helped me to understand, on a visceral level, how easily autonomy can be subsumed under the guise of safety, support, and risk management. I notice the gulf between how I describe what’s happening as ‘supervision and control’, and how one of the hospital caregivers referred to it, as ‘support’.
Making it possible for families to tell their Court of Protection stories: How we got the reporting restrictions changed (while P is still alive)
By Celia Kitzinger, 29th August 2025 Earlier this month, Sandra and Joe Preston published an account of their experience in the Court of Protection and queried whether the case about their relative’s “deprivation of liberty” was a good use of judicial time, tax-payers’ money and in the public interest. You can read their blog postContinue reading “Making it possible for families to tell their Court of Protection stories: How we got the reporting restrictions changed (while P is still alive)”
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 