“if there’s a decision of the Supreme Court that is arguably wrong, the sooner we decide whether it is, the better…. There is no such thing as an infallible institution.”
Tag Archives: Disability Justice
Positive Obligations under Article 5 and The Attorney General’s Reference to the UKSC
The AIRE Centre is a specialist human rights legal charity, which uses the power of European law to protect individual and collective fundamental rights [The AIRE Centre]. The AIRE Centre intervened in Cheshire West and applied to intervene in the AG’s Reference but was refused permission.
Renal Failure Case Returns: Dialysis problems and Barnet’s non-compliance with a court order
Non-compliance from the public body was dealt with by judicial expressions of incomprehension (“I’m struggling to understand…”) about the Local Authority’s failure to act and about their failure to apologise for not doing so. This led to an acknowledgement of (some) fault by Barnet…
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
A summary of the arguments heard by the Supreme Court
On 20-22 October 2025, the UK Supreme Court is hearing argument about how to understand a deprivation of liberty. This blog is a summary of the oral arguments that the court has heard, and will be updated as the case develops.
Cheshire West returns to the Supreme Court: The position of the parties
This blog contains brief summaries of the position of each party and intervener. In putting together this blog, I’ve tried to capture the essence of each position but not explain every step in the formulation of that position.
Place Your Bets: The Supreme Court vs The Spirit of Cheshire West
On Monday 20th to Wednesday 22nd October, the UK Supreme Court is gearing up to hear a case that could redraw the map of human rights protections for people deprived of their liberty, and I, for one, am terrified.
Reform, not rollback: Reflections from a social worker and former DOLS lead on the upcoming Supreme Court case about deprivation of liberty
This question strikes at the heart of the “subjective element” of deprivation of liberty. And it’s why charities like Mind, Mencap, and the National Autistic Society are sounding the alarm. As someone who has worked as a DoLS lead, Best Interests Assessor, and social worker, and now as a Practice Development Consultant at SCIE, I share those concerns.
Cheshire West Revisited
There are probably constitutional and legal questions about this route to reviewing an earlier Supreme Court decision, but that’s not what interests me today. want to write about valid consent, because it’s a topic I’ve been thinking and writing about a lot since Cheshire West
Reconsidering Cheshire West in the Supreme Court: Is a gilded cage still a cage?
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.
Promoting Open Justice in the Court of Protection 