View source for Birmingham City Council v SR (2019) EWCOP 28

{{Case
|Date=2019/07/17
|NCN=[2019] EWCOP 28
|Essex issue=96
|Essex page=27
|Other citations=(2019) 22 CCL Rep 326, [2020] 3 All ER 438, (2020) 172 BMLR 173, [2019] Med LR 510, [2020] COPLR 62
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Lieven
|Parties=Birmingham City Council, SR, Lancashire County Council, JTA
|Cites=SSJ v MM (2018) UKSC 60
|Sentence=Deprivation of liberty during conditional discharge
|Summary=(1) Both patients supported but lacked capacity in relation to the proposed care plans, which involved deprivation of liberty concurrently with a conditional discharge, and those plans were in their best interests. (2) Obiter, the division in the MOJ's post-MM guidance (MCA DOL for incapacitous patients whose risk is to themselves, but MHA s17 leave for incapacitous patients whose risk is to others and for capacitous patients) did not withstand scrutiny as it is in patients' best interests to be kept "out of mischief" and therefore out of psychiatric hospital.
|Detail===Note==
The two cases in this judgment were (1) Birmingham City Council v SR and (2) Lancashire County Council v JTA, so sometimes this judgment gets called SR/JTA.

==See also==
*[[HM Prison and Probation Service, 'Guidance: Discharge conditions that amount to deprivation of liberty' (January 2019)]]
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty,Discharge conditions cases
|News=Yes
|RSS pubdate=2020/10/17 08:13:02 AM
}}