Considering ‘deprivation of liberty’ in a family home setting after AGNI

HHJ Burrows determined that there is no deprivation of liberty for a young woman living under constant supervision and control in an annex to the family home. It was clear from his comments in court that he did so with considerable reluctance, referring to “deeply philosophically difficult” arguments.

AGNI: A common-sense judgment or agony?

For people who consider their loved ones well cared for, safe, and happy, the pre‑AGNI deprivation of liberty (DoL) processes were nonsensical and often intrusive. For that reason, the current judgment brings a sense of relief to many. But for other individuals, whose daily lives are dictated and constrained by institutional or quasi‑institutional regimes, with simple choices removed from their decisional space, and an array of human‑rights abuses hidden behind closed cultures, this judgment may have a more detrimental impact.

Overturning Cheshire West and my Grandma’s experience of ‘the death house’ care home 

Born in 1930, my Grandma was funny, cheeky, loving and firmly opinionated. She had been diagnosed with end-stage heart failure and vascular dementia, with fluctuating capacity and had been living happily in a small nursing home…

The Supreme Court’s judgment is an opportunity returning us to common sense

by Lorraine Currie, 11th June 2026 The image accompanying this blog has been provided by Lorraine’s daughter: the Magic Artist, Grace. To see her artwork (and for details about how to purchase it), you can visit her website: https://gracecurrie.art Editorial Note: this is the first of a series of ‘commentary’ blog posts we plan to publishContinue reading “The Supreme Court’s judgment is an opportunity returning us to common sense”

Learning from five nonagenarians: Can we avoid becoming a “P” in the Court of Protection in our old age?

In a single month, I observed five hearings involving nonagenarians – people in their nineties. I can’t imagine that anyone would choose to be involved – or to have their family members involved – in Court of Protection proceedings as they approach the end of their life. I’m not sure, though, having considered these five cases carefully (and looked at others we’ve blogged about) that there’s much we can do to avoid it.

Abstract argument: The Attorney General for Northern Ireland’s Reference to the Supreme Court

Many of the hypothetical arguments and postulated facts raised at the hearing concerned not the issue of consent on which the Attorney General sought guidance, but the wider issue of whether Cheshire West was correctly decided viz. the “acid test”. That question was raised late in the day by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care who does not have standing to refer cases directly to the Supreme Court himself…

When open justice undermines public confidence: Scrutinising the Supreme Court

Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken, comments of ordinary men

“Liberty” in the Supreme Court

“What about somebody who is so demented they’re effectively catatonic. Just spend the day in front of a television set. Is that person- In what sense does that person have any liberty which she can be deprived of?” (Lord Reed)

Reflections of a freelance mental capacity consultant on the Supreme Court case about deprivation of liberty

I know it’s not a popular view, but I consider the limitations on my daughter’s liberty arise from the injury. She cannot always bring forward and initiate ideas; she can’t go out alone – not because we or the State want to impede her experience of liberty but because the combination of visual impairment, mobility impairment and speed of processing information make it unsafe for her to do so.