DOLS – Part 4


I have looked at a number of cases following on from the Cheshire West case as decided by the Supreme Court, which indicated that if someone is under “continuous control and supervision”, and if they are cognitively impaired, then they are deprived of their liberty and such a deprivation should be authorised.


It is important to understand that the Court was not indicating that such a deprivation was not in that person’s interests, just that any deprivation should be authorised, as this brought with it consideration of the least restrictive decision and periodic review.


There was real concern though that this case would mean that the Local Authority and Court of Protection would be inundated with new cases.


The next case to consider is:  KW v Rochdale and the details of the case are:

Katherine 52, She suffered brain damage during surgery, she was left with cognitive and mental health problems, epilepsy and physical disability (when aged 34).


She went to rehab & eventually her own home with 24 hour support.  She is just ambulant with a zimmer.  Mentally she was trapped in the past living in her old home with her 3 small children (all of whom are now adult) and has a tendency to wander off to find her small children, when she does she will be brought back.  The carers try to make her life as normal as possible.  Her care is paid for by Rochdale LA & local Clinical Commissioning Group.


As Katherine was living in her own home, the matter was considered by the Court of Protection.  Her children were involved in her life, but were not the live in carers.


Like the other cases that I have discussed post Cheshire West, it is arguable that she was under “continuous control and supervision”, as she was brought back when she went looking for her children.


The Court of Protection decided that a private package of care would be the same and in part for that reason, this was not a deprivation of liberty and to find that it would be was irrational and arbitrary.