THE IMPLICATIONS OF G v E PETER GROSE Head of Healthcare Lester Aldridge LLP

The Facts and People Involved E -A young man with profound learning disabilities F -His carer G -His sister and nearest relative MCC -The Local Authority Y -The Landlord Y LimitedThe domiciliary care provider Z Road “The Supported Living Accommodation”

The Court Claim 1.Did E have capacity to make decisions? 2.Did MCC unlawfully detain E in breach of Article 5 ECHR (Right to Liberty and Security) and/or DOLS under the MCA 2005? 3.Did MCC interfere with E’s rights to a home/family life under Article 8 ECHR? 4.Should MCC pay E damages and pay the court costs?

The Main Judgment – (Baker J March 2010 and CA July 2010) 1.E lacked mental capacity 2.E deprived of liberty at Z Road 3.DOLS not applicable as Z Road not a hospital or C.H. 4.E’s deprivation of liberty unlawful under Article 5 as MCC had not sought prior Court Order under MCA 5.Breach of E’s Article 8 rights ie respect for private and family life 6.Manchester City Council should be named and shamed (September 2010) 7.Damages and costs still to be assessed

Failure to Register Z Road as a Care Home: -Criminal Offence -Repayment of Housing Benefit -Appeal to Supreme Court

Lessons From The Case 1.LAs would be unwise to place people without capacity in supported living without prior Court Order (including those already in CHs). 2.LAs must train staff better in relation to DOL. 3.Supported living providers beware. 4.DH/CQC Guidance? 5.Risk of SL Providers and CQC being parties to future actions

PETER GROSE Head of Healthcare Lester Aldridge LLP