View source for Staffordshire County Council v SRK (2016) EWCOP 27

{{Case
|Date=2016/05/24
|NCN=[2016] EWCOP 27
|ICLR=[2016] WLR(D) 300
|ICLR ID=2016003444
|Essex issue=66
|Essex page=9
|Other citations=[2016] COPLR 504, [2016] 3 WLR 867, [2016] Fam 419, [2016] Med LR 398, [2016] MHLO 36
|Court=Court of Protection
|Judges=Charles
|Parties=Staffordshire County Council, SRK, Irwin Mitchell Trust Corporation, Secretary of State for Justice
|Judicial history=*[[SSJ v Staffordshire County Council and SRK (2016) EWCA Civ 1317]] 
*[[Staffordshire County Council v SRK (2016) EWCOP 27]]
|Sentence=Privately arranged DOL
|Summary="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 [2014] UKSC 19, [2014] 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."
|Subject=Deprivation of liberty
|News=No
|RSS pubdate=2023-7-23 11:52:28 PM
}}