25/09/16 (3): Office of the Public Guardian, 'Giving gifts for someone else: A guide for attorneys and deputies' (document OPG2, published 18/5/16, updated 20/6/16). "Attorneys and deputies can sometimes give gifts on behalf of the person they have been appointed to help make decisions for. Only deputies and attorneys making financial decisions can give gifts; you can’t give gifts if you have been appointed just to make health and welfare decisions. If you do have the authority to give gifts, you can do so only in some situations and if it is in the person’s best interests. This guide includes practical advice such as: (a) what counts as a gift; (b) who can give gifts for someone else; (c) when you can give gifts; (d) changing the limits on gift-giving; (e) what happens with unauthorised gifts." See Office of the Public Guardian
25/09/16 (2): Deprivation of liberty case.Staffordshire County Council v SRK (2016) EWCOP 27, (2016) MHLO 36 — "This case concerns an individual SRK who was severely injured in a road traffic accident. The effects of those injuries are that (a) he lacks capacity to make decisions on the regime of care, treatment and support that he should receive (SRK's care regime), and (b) applying the approach in Cheshire West (see Surrey County Council v P and others; Cheshire West and Chester Council v P and another  UKSC 19,  AC 896), SRK's care regime creates, on an objective assessment, a deprivation of liberty. SRK was awarded substantial damages that were paid to his property and affairs deputy (the third Respondent IMTC). He lives at a property that has been bought and adapted for him. His regime of care and support there is provided by private sector providers. The damages funded that purchase and adaptation and fund that regime of care. The issue is whether this situation on the ground is a deprivation of liberty that has to be authorised by the Court of Protection (the COP) by it making a welfare order. The test that the COP would apply in making such an order is whether SRK's care regime is the least restrictive available option to best promote his best interests. The same test applies to the decision makers on the ground. It is common ground that at present SRK's care regime satisfies that test."
25/09/16 (1): Medical treatment case.Re W (Medical Treatment: Anorexia) (2016) EWCOP 13, (2016) MHLO 35 — "In this case, Miss W, a young woman aged 28, has suffered from a severe and enduring eating disorder for 20 years, with physical, social and psychological consequences of the kind described above. In this judgment I will call her W. Since the age of 11, she has had six admissions for inpatient treatment, spread between five units around the country and amounting to about 10 years in total. Her current admission has lasted for 2½ years and yet, despite the most intensive support, she is barely eating and is losing weight at the rate of 500 g – 1 kg per week. She now weighs less than 30 kg and her BMI is 12.6. If she continues to lose weight at this rate, she will die. ... The outcome is that, accepting the unanimous professional view, I approve the plan of the Health Board. This is that W should now be discharged into the community with a closely thought-out package of support for her and her family. Given W's fragile condition, it is a plan that has only been arrived at after the most anxious consideration by her care team. It will at first seem counterintuitive that someone so ill should be discharged from hospital. The conventional assumption is that hospital treatment is likely to bring benefits, but the evidence has persuaded me that in this case that is not so. The outcome is to some extent in accordance with W's wishes, which I will describe below."