Neary v Hillingdon

• background

• judgment

• implications & lessons

• conclusions & questions

HBC p

rovid

ing

fam

ily s

upport

Ste

ven w

ent

into

resp

ite c

are

Urg

ent

DO

LS a

uth

ori

sati

on

4 x

sta

ndard

DO

LS

auth

ori

sati

ons

HBC iss

ue C

oP

pro

ceedin

gs

IMCA involv

ed

Judgm

ent

= S

teven

retu

rned h

om

e

Judgm

ent

= lif

t

report

ing r

est

ricti

ons

Steven was deprived of liberty

LA must refer disputes to court

DOLS did not provide lawful

authority

Steven should have been

at home

“key features are Steven’s objection to

being at the support unit, the objection of

his father, and the total and effective

control of Steven’s every waking moment in

a environment that was not his home”

everyone has the right to respect for his

private and family life …

there shall be no interference by a public

authority … except in accordance with the

law and … necessary in a democratic

society …

“starting point should be the normal assumption that [P]

will be better off in a family than in an institution” …

“and we should not lightly interfere with family life”.

“the burden is always on the state to show that P’s welfare

cannot be sustained by living with and being looked after

by his or her family, with or without our help”.

“significant welfare issues that cannot be

resolved by discussion should be placed before

the court … DOLS is not to be used by a LA as a

means of getting its own way on the question

of whether it is in the person’s best interests

to be in the place at all” Mr Justice Peter Jackson

“the fact that an individual does not

bring the matter to court does not

relieve the local authority of the obligation

to act, it redoubles it”

no record that Steven

wanted to go home

no thought to

alternatives

no consideration of

referral to court

“cursory” discussion

with Mr Neary “a document done in a hurry”

no record of

Mr Neary’s request

• 50 (1) The supervisory body must give a standard authorisation if:

- (a) all assessments are positive, and

- (b) the supervisory body have written

copies of all those assessments

“supervisory body

must actively supervise”

“should never be a rubber

stamping exercise…”.

“Insufficient scrutiny of inadequate

information” will not lead to a lawful

authorisation

separate roles carefully

involvement of family

application to court

approach must be collaborative

Who is the

decision maker?

court is a “place to share responsibility

for risk taking”

Who is the

decision maker?

real family dispute

not sure it’s a DOL

not sure DOL is in best

interest

if everyone agrees there’s a

DOL and it’s in best interest

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/articl

e3057592.ece

http://www.independent.co.uk/new

s/uk/home-news/bra-fathers-right-

to-love-2295560.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/new

s/uk/home-news/locking-autistic-

man-in-padded-room-ruled-illegal-

2298553.html

• Cheshire West & Chester Council

v P (14.6.2011)

• C v A local authority (17.6.2011)

- communication with family

- criticism of failure to go to

court sooner

• www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk

• http://www.bailii.org

• www.communities.idea.gov.uk/welcome.do

• www.law-less-ordinary.com

• www.brownejacobson.com

Get in touch…

ben.troke@brownejacobson.com

0115 976 6263