The Supreme Court handed down a judgment on 2 June 2026 in the case of Reference by the Attorney General of Northern Ireland [2026] UKSC 16 (‘AGNI’). The judgement abolished the ‘acid test’ in Cheshire West. As a result, fewer people will be deemed ‘deprived of their liberty’, so they will not be entitled to a Relevant Person’s Representative, to automatic free legal aid or access to the Court of Protection. These vital safeguards are being removed from people who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect.
There will be fewer deprivation of liberty cases in the Court of Protection. So while cases are fresh in people’s minds, we’re collecting them!
Please send us a description of unpublished cases in the Court of Protection, where there has been an application under s21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 challenging a standard authorisation in a hospital or care home under the DoLS regime; or an application on a ‘COPDOL11’ for authorisation of a deprivation of liberty in the community (by which we mean a place other than a hospital or care home). These should be cases where P, post-AGNI, may not be deemed deprived of their liberty.
Please send your examples to dol@rightfullives.net, and explain who you are and how you know about the case. We will assign a random name to P, and say for example “Dorothy’s case, by a social worker”, or “Ahmed’s case, by a solicitor.” Please make sure you anonymise your submission, and be sure to comply with any transparency order (or reporting restriction order) made. We will delete emails after the anonymous summary has been posted online.
Case 1: Jayne’s Case by a Barrister
Jayne was a woman who had lived much of her life in institutional care. A s21A challenge to her deprivation of liberty in a care home was brought. An independent social worker reviewed all the records of physical restraint and concluded that Jayne was being restrained due to inappropriate care by staff which caused Jayne to become distressed and did not encourage de-escalation. Jayne was moved to a new placement where the weekly physical restraint she had been experiencing stopped. It is not clear that Jayne would have been subject to a DOLS standard authorisation now, because she was in an ordinary care home, was not receiving medication aimed at preventing her from objecting to her care arrangements, was said by professionals to require physical restraint as part of her care plan because of her presentation, and was not objecting to the entirety of her care arrangements.
Case 2: Anne’s case by a Barrister
Anne was an elderly lady with dementia. She lived alone and had been admitted to hospital following a fall. She wanted to go back to her home but needed 24 hour care. The social worker decided she would be discharged to a care home against her wishes. Her DoLs authorisation in hospital was challenged under the s.21A procedure so she received free legal representation. Her son, who held an LPA for finances, agreed to equity release so that her care at home could be paid for. She went home with carers in place and later died at home, never having had to move into a nursing home, in accordance with her long-held wishes. It is not clear now whether she would be viewed as deprived of her liberty in hospital as she was not physically able to leave and required 24/7 care.
Case 3: Cynthia’s case by an independent advocate and litigation friend
Cynthia had been living in a care home for a decade, with restrictions to her community access, family contact, finances and access to technology. She was also PEG fed and had dietary restrictions in place.
As a DoLS standard authorisation was in place, a paid RPR began working with her. The RPR built trust with Cynthia, who began to disclose that she was imprisoned. Cynthia would become highly emotional when speaking to the RPR. To care staff, she said everything was okay. She had no social worker, despite this being requested multiple times by the RPR, who asked for a care review.
The RPR observed there was no capacity assessment or best interests decisions in relation to the restrictions, that information was missing from the care records, which contained contradictions for the reasons of restrictions on family contact and community access.
The RPR initiated an application under s.21A to the Court of Protection. Within proceedings, it emerged that Cynthia no longer required PEG feeding; that the care placement had unlawfully removed her phone and told her family that she had ‘’100% dementia’’ and, therefore, could not communicate verbally
with them. It further emerged that Cynthia had been unlawfully deprived of
her liberty with no DoLS authorisation in place for the prior decade,
and there were missed opportunities to support her to make a court application sooner.
The proceedings led to Cynthia moving to another care home that was considerably less restrictive. Cynthia was supported to resume family contact and community access.
Case 4: Views of a local authority solicitor
I can confidently and unequivocally think of countless examples whereby s21A has resulted in changes for P. There are too many to specify. There are cases where P is barely objecting to the arrangements (there is even a question whether they were objecting at all), which in their view was irrelevant. S21A challenges provide an essential tool and mechanism to challenge and question the proportionality of arrangements for P.
Questioning why the arrangements are in their best interests. Why is that person not able to have the least invasion in their lives irrespective of how compliant they may be? Often this is through no fault of social workers – it may be that P’s circumstances have changed during the period of no social work involvement (closed to reviews).
COPDOL11 applications are somewhat different due to the process. That said, the nature of referrals of potential COPDOL11s received to the legal team lead to significant scrutiny of the arrangements.
Questioning why the arrangements are necessary. Why is restraint being used? Often they are also a gateway to uncover wider issues in respect of P’s Article 8 rights, for example social media restrictions and access to the community. Sometimes these matters are resolved via legal advice. Often due to the nature or complexity, a substantive application is required.
Those who are compliant or who do not “shout loudest” will be left without independent scrutiny of their arrangements. Social workers are dedicated professionals, but this is an imperfect system and the independent s21A process is pivotal to safeguarding the rights of the individuals concerned. In addition, as a solicitor who represents a local authority, I can say it also provides an element of safeguard of the local authority itself.
Case 5: Robert’s case by an independent social worker
Robert has autism, severe learning disability, limited verbal communication and a sensory condition. Robert had no family or friends, but he had a paid RPR under the DoLSframework who initiated a s21A application on his behalf. The court appointed me as independent social worker to provide a view on Robert’s residence and care.
When I became involved, Robert lived in a care home with 8 other residents. He appeared to like his carers, but didn’t interact much with other residents, especially after new residents moved into the home who were noisy and would enter his personal space. When he was anxious, he would scream, sometimes biting and scratching himself. He was regularly administered sedative medication and began retreating into a small shower room in the home, spending long periods of time there, refusing to come out.
I visited Robert several times, spoke to the care team and collated information from the documents and others. I gained a sense of Robert’s history and needs, and most importantly, his feelings. Robert was responding negatively to the unpredictable environment and the lack of appropriate stimulation and communication. His sensory needs were unmet and he was expressing himself in the only way he could.
I recommended that a positive behaviour plan was completed, visual communication aids used, and sensory therapies provided. This supported his mood and reduced the need for sedative medication. I recommended a single occupancy home environment, adapted to his sensory needs. I suggested a slow and integrated transition with a new team of workers gradually familiarising with Robert in his current setting.
The court endorsed my recommendations, and the care teams facilitated the suggestions made. Following the hard work and collaboration of the professionals and care teams involved, I was delighted to hear that Robert moved willingly into his new home, with no sedation necessary. He had a bespoke sensory space within his home and his new support plan included personalised activities and outings. This outcome would have been very unlikely without the scrutiny of the court, through which a coordinated and holistic evaluation of his circumstances was undertaken. Post AGNI, it is unclear whether the objective element of deprivation of liberty would be met, considering he could not express an objection, the ‘relative normality’ of the original setting, or the purpose of the restrictions.