Skip to main content

Court of Appeal 'redefine' Liberty

The Court of Appeal Judgement in Cheshire West and Chester v P appears to redefine the concept of deprivation of liberty to exclude disabled people, in effect depriving anyone locked up by social services on the basis of an *alleged* disability of safeguards and appeal rights.

This judgment has been criticised in this excellent article by Sam Smith - along with many others including Community Care magazine , 39 Essex Street Chambers and the Mental Health Alliance .

I have argued for the reform of the Court of Protection for some time - and this judgement only underscores the serious problems with the system.

The Mental Health Alliance will be proposing options for reform in a forthcoming report and it is to be hoped the Department of Health listens. This is one of the most pressing issues facing this country today. Extract from the report here.


Will Benson said…
Ahhhh, the great Munby. According to the CofA it is now okay for a husband, if he belives his wife to be suffering from a serious loss of global cognitive ability (he doesn't even have to be a doctor), to lock her up and yet not be depriving her of her liberty. Blow the rule of law, due process, Magna Carta and ECHR!

These judges are becoming more and more absurd each decade.
Anajinn said…
It needs to be two psychiatrists with no exceptions. This is a horror show and unbelievable in this day and age.
Anajinn said…
It needs to be the signature of two psychiatrists for deprivation of liberty with no exception whatsoever. This is a horror show from pre Victorian times and it must stop.
Grandma B said…
This is symptomatic of how the vulnerable are treated - particularly when they have substantial assets. The Office of the Public Guardian colludes in defrauding them of their assets and the Minsitry of Justice turns a blind eye to this. For one story of many, google "The Abuse of Grandma B"
Jake Maverick said…
it doesn't take any signatures or any psychoanalysts.....

Try watching 'The lives of Others'---- and see how different thatis to modern day UK, apart from the technology.....

death is preferable to being taken alive again!
Jake Maverick said…
so what act of Parliament legalised discriminating against disabled people? this crime? where can i check such document and have it independently verified?
or if there is no such thing why has this judge not (presumably) been prosecuted?
protected by royal charter as well?
and what abou those yobos that work at railway stations? not talking about the one's that keep attacking me....but what abut the assault on a disabled friend of mine? just attacked her/ dragged her off the train because he was too lazy to go fetch the ramp (it was pre booked) witnessed by couple of suspected pigyobs as well, who just watched....if i had intervened/ defended her i no doubt would been labelled the criminal...or chemically labotimised and worse again if i had manged to kill one of the pigyobs when they attacked me/ knocked one under a train (for a change)....none of that would actually be legal either would it? impossible to know but i suspect it is might still be legal to defend oneself/ others...
and as for tribunal...still waiting for mine, coming up six years now!
Jake Maverick said…
pre-emptive legal is that John?!

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).


R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…