This document summarizes the key points of the Neary v Hillingdon case. It discusses that Steven Neary was deprived of his liberty when he was placed in respite care without his consent or that of his father. The judgment found that the local authority did not have lawful authority to deprive Steven of his liberty and that he should have been allowed to remain at home. It emphasizes that disputes around deprivation of liberty should be referred to court and the state bears the burden of proving that an individual's welfare cannot be met within their family.

1. Neary v Hillingdon
•background
•judgment
•implications & lessons
•conclusions & questions

2. HBC providing
family support
Steven went into
respite care
Urgent DOLS authorisation
4 x standard DOLS authorisations
HBC issue CoP
proceedings
IMCA involved
Judgment = Steven
returned home
Judgment = lift
reporting restrictions

4. Steven was deprived of liberty
LA must refer disputes to court
DOLS did not provide lawful
authority
Steven should have been at home

5. “key features are Steven’s objection to
being at the support unit, the objection of
his father, and the total and effective
control of Steven’s every waking moment in
a environment that was not his home”

6. everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life …
there shall be no interference by a public authority … except in accordance with the law and … necessary in a democratic society …

7. “starting point should be the normal assumption that [P] will be better off in a family than in an institution” … “and we should not lightly interfere with family life”.
“the burden is always on the state to show that P’s welfare
cannot be sustained by living with and being looked after
by his or her family, with or without our help”.

9. “significant welfare issues that cannot be
resolved by discussion should be placed before
the court … DOLS is not to be used by a LA as a
means of getting its own way on the question
of whether it is in the person’s best interests
to be in the place at all”
Mr Justice Peter Jackson

10. “the fact that an individual does not
bring the matter to court does not
relieve the local authority of the obligation
to act, it redoubles it”

11. no record that Steven wanted to go home
no thought to
alternatives
no consideration of
referral to court
“cursory” discussion
with Mr Neary
“a document done in a hurry”
no record of
Mr Neary’s request

12. •50 (1) The supervisory body must
give a standard authorisation if:
- (a) all assessments are positive, and
- (b) the supervisory body have written copies of all those assessments

13. “supervisory body
must actively supervise”
“should never be a rubber
stamping exercise…”.

14. “Insufficient scrutiny of inadequate information” will not lead to a lawful authorisation

15. separate roles carefully
involvement of family
application to court
approach must be collaborative

17. Who is the
decision maker?

18. court is a “place to share responsibility
for risk taking”

19. Who is the
decision maker?

22. real family dispute
not sure it’s a DOL
not sure DOL is in best
interest
if everyone agrees there’s a DOL and it’s in best interest

24. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3057592.ece

25. http://www.independent.co.uk/new
s/uk/home-news/bra-fathers-right-to-
love-2295560.html

26. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/locking-autistic- man-in-padded-room-ruled-illegal- 2298553.html

27. • Cheshire West & Chester Council v P (14.6.2011)
• C v A local authority (17.6.2011)
- communication with family
- criticism of failure to go to court sooner

28. •www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk
•http://www.bailii.org
•www.communities.idea.gov.uk/welcome.do
•www.law-less-ordinary.com
•www.brownejacobson.com

29. 




30. Get in touch…
ben.troke@brownejacobson.com
0115 976 6263