Information for "Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (2024) EWCOP 72 (T3)"

Basic information

Display titleOldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ [2024] EWCOP 72 (T3)
Default sort keyOldham Metropolitan Borough Council v KZ (2024) EWCOP 72 (T3)
Page length (in bytes)1,461
Page ID16055
Page content languageen - English
Page content modelwikitext
Indexing by robotsAllowed
Number of redirects to this page0
Counted as a content pageYes

Page protection

EditAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
MoveAllow only users with "editing" permission (infinite)
View the protection log for this page.

Edit history

Page creatorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of page creation20:52, 7 December 2024
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit20:52, 7 December 2024
Total number of edits1
Total number of distinct authors1
Recent number of edits (within past 90 days)0
Recent number of distinct authors0

Page properties

Hidden categories (2)

This page is a member of 2 hidden categories:

Transcluded templates (11)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
(1) The court decided that it had power to make anticipatory declarations under MCA 2005 s16 (which in this case would render deprivation of liberty under s4A(4) lawful as being a decision of the court under s16(2)(a)). (2) The original psychiatric evidence was that KZ lacked capacity in all areas. A subsequent assessment by a psychologist with expertise in assessing deaf people found that, while he lacked capacity in relation to sex, finances, tenancy, social media and internet, and litigation, he did have capacity in relation to residence, care and support, and contact with his family (although that capacity fluctuated daily); and that he had extreme language deprivation rather than borderline learning disability. (3) The new evidence was accepted, and anticipatory declarations were made. (4) The judge provided guidance for assessment of a deaf individual fluent in BSL: it should be undertaken by an assessor who is suitably qualified to communicate at the relevant level of BSL and ideally with a background in understanding deafness and engaging with the deaf community; otherwise, explanations would be required.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO