| Display title | Re YC [2021] EWCOP 34 |
| Default sort key | Re YC (2021) EWCOP 34 |
| Page length (in bytes) | 1,158 |
| Page ID | 13250 |
| Page content language | en - English |
| Page content model | wikitext |
| Indexing by robots | Allowed |
| Number of redirects to this page | 0 |
| Edit | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Move | Allow only users with "editing" permission (infinite) |
| Page creator | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of page creation | 13:03, 10 June 2021 |
| Latest editor | Jonathan (talk | contribs) |
| Date of latest edit | 11:05, 14 January 2022 |
| Total number of edits | 3 |
| Total number of distinct authors | 1 |
| Recent number of edits (within past 90 days) | 0 |
| Recent number of distinct authors | 0 |
Description | Content |
Article description: (description)
This attribute controls the content of the description and og:description elements. | "This appeal raises an important question about how supervisory bodies should evidence their scrutiny of requests for authorisation of deprivation of liberty. ... There appears to be broad agreement that the following procedure is both workable and appropriate: (a) Firstly, the person granting the authorisation should carefully check that all details on Form 5 accurately reflect the other DOLS forms and relate to the particular P; (b) The Form 5 should be checked for accuracy by another member of the DOLS authorisation team of the supervisory body; (c) Form 5 should be provided to the RPR [Relevant Person's Representative] with a covering letter requesting that the RPR carefully checks that the forms, and all the information in them accurately relates to the relevant person; (d) An express requirement for the RPR to confirm accuracy to the supervisory body would be disproportionate but the RPR could do so." |