Presentation on theme: "Mental Capacity and the deprivation of liberty standards"— Presentation transcript:
1Mental Capacity and the deprivation of liberty standards Luke Clements
2A numbers game DoH ‘RIA’ on MH Bill 2006, Nov 2006 500,000 people who lack capacity50,000 eligible for ‘special safeguards’ – unable to leave hospital or care home for their own good‘Assumed’ only 5,000 of these will need assessmentAssume 1,250 will actually be detained2.5% (31 cases) will go to Court of ProtectionIn Bournewood DoH stated an:extra 48,000 p.a. detained as result of CA decision
3A numbers game DoH ‘MCA DOLS’ News, August 2008 Number needing assessment will be 21,000 (not 5,000)ie 144 per authority (3 a week)Of which 25% will need authorisations (ie 5,250 , not 1,250)Even if this is correct and also correct that only 2.5% go to CoP – this would be 131 cases – bit 31 cases;3
4Capacity to decide where to live? JE v DE and Surrey CC (2006)Newham LBC v BS & S (2003)HM v. Switzerland (2002)HL v UK (2004)
5Section 5 Acts best interests Where a person ‘acts in connection with the care or treatment of a someone believed to lack capacity; andThe person has formed a reasonable belief as tothe person’s lack of capacity andbest intereststhen the person will not be liable for the actionprovided it is something that the incapacitated person could have consented to had s/he capacity.
6Section 6 ~ restraint Restraint can only be used when: the person restraining reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent harm to the incapacitated person; andit is proportionate both to:the likelihood of the harm andthe seriousness of the harm.3. if it would not constitute detention under article 5(1) ECHR
7Article 5(1) No one shall be deprived of liberty Except For one of six specified reasons ~ one of which is a person’s mental disorder, andIf it is in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law.
8What is ‘detention?’ HL v UK 5th October 2004. R v Bournewood Community & Mental Health NHS Trust ex p L (1999)HL v UK 5th October 2004.
10Article 5(1) No one shall be deprived of liberty Except For a specified reason (eg a person’s mental disorder)BUT in every case it must be ‘in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law and
11Deprivation of liberty HL v UK (2004)‘‘the starting-point must be the specific situation …whole range of factors … such as the type, duration, effects and manner of implementation of the measure in question.The distinction between a deprivation of, and restriction upon, liberty is merely one of degree or intensity and not one of nature or substance.’.
12Deprivation of liberty HL v UK (2004)‘under continuous supervision and control and was not free to leave’.‘not determinative whether the ward was “locked” or “lockable”’Detention possible ‘even during a period when he was in an open ward with regular unescorted access to the unsecured hospital grounds and unescorted leave outside the hospital’.
13Deprivation of liberty HL v UK (2004)restraint used, including sedation where resistingcomplete control over care/movement significant periodcontrol over treatment, contacts, residencewould be prevented from leaving if attempt torequest by carers for discharge refusedunable to maintain social contacts because of restrictions placed on access to other peoplelost autonomy because of continuous supervision & control..
14Deprivation of liberty JE v DE and Surrey CC (2006)prisoners detained in an open prison may be subject to virtually no physical restraint within the prison, may be allowed to have extensive social and other contact with the outside world and may even be allowed to leave the prison from time to time, yet they are indubitably “deprived of their liberty”.
15Deprivation of liberty LBC v TG, JG & KR (2007)only “an ordinary care home where only ordinary restrictions of liberty applied”;“the family were able to visit G on a largely unrestricted basis and were entitled to remove him from the home for outings”;“G was personally compliant and expressed himself as happy…He had lived in a local authority care home for over three years and was objectively content with his situation there”;“there was no occasion when he was objectively deprived of his liberty”.
16Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) Role in MCA detentions where:Nobody appropriate to consult during authorisation process; andNo person available to be ‘relevant person’s representative’Supervisory body must instruct an IMCA if the detained person or their representative requests one.
17MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standards 1. The MHA 2007 amends MCA 2005.2. Provides for 3 routes to MCA detention3. It is now unlawful to use the common law deprive people of their liberty in analogous situations to that in the Bournewood case.
18MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standards Three routes to detentionCourt of Protection authorised detention under s 16(2)(a). This form of detention has been possible since October 2007.2. Detention is authorised under s4A & Sch A1 (standard or urgent authorisations); and3. Detention which is necessary for life-saving or other emergency treatment under s4B
19MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standards The s4 MCA amendments are due to come into force in April 2009.Such persons must either have their detention authorised under s16; orBe detained under the Mental Health Act 1983; orExceptionally under s47 National Assistance Act 1948.
20MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations duty on hospitals and care homes to identify anyone at risk of deprivation of liberty and,if they do not consider that a less restrictive regime is possible,request an authorisation from the supervisory body.The supervisory body will be, for a care home - the Local Authority, and for a hospital the PCT (in Wales - the National Assembly)
21MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations It will be unlawful for a hospital or care home to detain a person without an authorisationThe supervisory body will commission assessments including:
22MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations an ‘age’ assessmenta “mental health” assessmenta “mental capacity” assessment;a “best interests” assessment ie is the deprivation of liberty is necessary in the person’s best interests.an “eligibility” assessmenta “no refusals” assessment
23MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Age AssessmentMCA detention only applies if the person is 18 or over.If under 18 the guidance suggests use of s25 CA 1989 – a secure accommodation order
24MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Mental Health assessmentTo establish that the person is suffering from a mental disorder within meaning of MHA 1983 (but to include LD):Either(a) s12 approved Dr; or(b) one with special experience in diagnosis/treatment of mental disorder or(c) has completed MCA mental disorder assessor training
25MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Mental Capacity assessment;To establish that the person lacks capacity in relation to their accommodation in hospital / a care home‘in practice undertaken by a doctor – but regulations allow for others … eg social workers, nurses, OTs and psychologists … who have relevant skills and experience’
26MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Best Interests assessmentUndertaken by an approved mental health professional or other (eg social worker, nurse, OT);Decidesa) if a deprivation is occurring / going to occur andb) if this is necessary to prevent harm to the person and is proportionate
27MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Best Interests assessmentDuty to consult widelySet a review period (max 12 months)Recommend a representativeStipulate conditions concerning the deprivation (ie necessary constraints)Detailed reasons required
28MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Eligibility AssessmentThat the person is not already detained or liable to be detained under the MHA 1983That the person is not objecting to admission to hospitalUsually undertaken by the best interests assessor or anybody considered appropriate by the supervisory body
29MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations No Refusals assessmentThat the authorisation would conflict with:a) a valid advance treatment decision under s24-26 MHGA 2005;b) a valid decision by an attorney or deputyUsually undertaken by the best interests assessor or anybody considered appropriate by the supervisory body
30MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations as part of the best interests assessment and, if a person is unbefriended, an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate appointedThe supervisory body will only grant an authorisation if all the assessments recommend it.
31MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations Authorisation should be obtained in advance, except if urgent, in which case should be obtained within seven days.Every person detained will have someone appointed to represent their interests who is independent of the supervisory body and the hospital or care home.
32MCA Deprivation of Liberty Standard Authorisations To challenge detention the person or their representative, will have right of appeal to the Court of ProtectionIf mental health legislation could be used instead, the new procedure will not be able to be used to admit or keep people in hospital for treatment for mental disorder if it is reasonably believed that the person concerned objects to detention.