View source for DH summary of Re MIG and MEG (2010) EWHC 785 (Fam)

<div class="perm">
In the first case of MIG and MEG, Mrs Justice Parker (MJP) gave the initial judgment in 2010. The Official Solicitor appealed and the Court of Appeal has now given judgment. Both MJP and the Court of Appeal found that there was no deprivation of liberty for either girl. MIG was living in a foster home, where she was very happy. MEG lived in a small specialist unit with 3 other residents. Both girls had their own room. Neither made any attempt to leave though both would have been restrained had they tried to do so. Both attended a unit of further education. MEG was being given Risperidone to control her anxiety. Both girls lacked capacity and were capable of making only the most trivial decisions of day to day life. Both were allowed contact with family and each other. MEG had some social life. MIG had very little but was taken on trips by her foster mother.

MJP gave a thorough analysis of Strasbourg cases on deprivation of liberty.

She also looked at 2 recent House of Lords cases. In one of these, Austin v Commissioner of Metropolitan Police [2009] UKHL 5, two members of the House of Lords considers the purpose of the restriction was relevant. MJP felt the context of police cordons and demonstrators was very different, and therefore the reference to “purpose” must be treated with caution, but did consider that the purpose of restrictions should be put into the equation when considering the factual matrix. In this case, she held it was important to consider the reasons why both girls were under continuous supervision and control. She cited Baroness Hale in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Dept v JJ & others [2007] UKHL 45 about control orders, “Restrictions designed for the benefit of the person concerned are less likely to be considered a deprivation of liberty than those designed for the benefit of society.”
</div>