Holly.gif

Information for "Re AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) (2018) EWHC 3103 (Fam)"

Basic information

Display titleRe AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) [2018] EWHC 3103 (Fam)
Default sort keyRe AB (Inherent Jurisdiction: Deprivation of Liberty) (2018) EWHC 3103 (Fam)
Page length (in bytes)1,609
Page ID9812
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 creation01:55, 19 December 2018
Latest editorJonathan (talk | contribs)
Date of latest edit19:15, 19 March 2022
Total number of edits10
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 (13)

Templates used on this page:

SEO properties

Description

Content

Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements.
AB had capacity to consent to the care, support and accommodation arrangements which were provided as part of his conditional discharge but, following the MM case, there was an unlawful deprivation of liberty. The High Court extended the inherent jurisdiction to regularise the position of a capacitous detained mental health patient subject to restrictions as part of his conditional discharge which satisfied the objective elements of a deprivation of liberty (firstly, it was clear that there was no legislative provision governing this situation in that the Mental Health Act provided no remedy; secondly, it was in the interests of justice; and, thirdly, there were sound and strong public policy justifications). The court order: authorised the deprivation of liberty for 12 months; required the applicant to apply to court if the restrictions increase, and no less than one month before the expiry of the authorisation; and provided for a review on the papers unless a party requests or the court requires an oral hearing.
Information from Extension:WikiSEO