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.

Comments

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 striking....how legal is that John?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9VJpuASP1zs#!

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. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…