ABSTRACT
The 2014 judgement in ‘Cheshire West’ caused clinical consternation. The case concerned, among others, P, a 37-year-old man with Down syndrome and cerebral palsy. He lacked capacity to make any decision in relation to his living arrangements. He required 24-hour care, provided in a local authority bungalow which he shared with two other residents, and constant staff supervision. The question for the court was whether these residential arrangements constituted a deprivation of liberty imposed by the state. If so, it would be necessary for the state to put in place mechanisms whereby the deprivation was authorised and controlled, to avoid disproportionate or unnecessary violations of P's human right to liberty. The Supreme Court concluded that because he lacked capacity (and could therefore not consent), was under continuous (state) supervision and control and not free to leave, he was deprived of his liberty.
