View source for Rochdale MBC v KW (2014) EWCOP 45, (2014) MHLO 123

The judge in this case decided that KW was not deprived of her liberty, stating as follows: "I am of the view that for the plenitude of cases such as this, where a person, often elderly, who is both physically and mentally disabled to a severe extent, is being looked after in her own home, and where the arrangements happen to be made, and paid for, by a local authority, rather than by the person's own family and paid for from her own funds, or from funds provided by members of her family, Article 5 is simply not engaged. I am of the view that the matter should be reconsidered by the Supreme Court." Permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal was granted, and an appeal against the decision was allowed by consent.

==Related judgments==
[[Rochdale MBC v KW (2015) EWCA Civ 1054, (2015) MHLO 71]]
*[[Rochdale MBC v KW (2015) EWCOP 13, (2015) MHLO 24]]
**[[Rochdale MBC v KW (2014) EWCOP 45, (2014) MHLO 123]]
==External links==
{{#bailii:(2014) EWCOP 45}}

{{link|http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/cheshire-west-decision-deprivation-liberty-could-be-unpicked|New Law Journal, 'Cheshire West decision on deprivation of liberty could be "unpicked"' (25/11/14)|s}}

{{link|http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/big-question-0|Jon Holbrook, 'The big question' (New Law Journal, 19/12/14)|s}}. Subtitle: "Jon Holbrook reflects on why John Stuart Mill is a better guide to 'liberty' than judicial precedent."

[[Category:Deprivation of liberty]]
[[Category:No summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2014 cases]]