The case of ‘V’: deprivation of liberty and profound disabilities

In a recent High Court judgment, Re V (Profound Disabilities), the complex issue of deprivation of liberty for individuals with profound disabilities was considered once again. The case has encouraged ongoing discussions in both caregiving and legal sectors. The case involves a 15-year-old boy known as 'V' with severe quadriplegic cerebral palsy and epilepsy, and brings into consideration the interrelation of law, ethics, and the care of profoundly disabled individuals. 

'V' requires constant supervision and care due to his significant disabilities. As such, the local authority sought a deprivation of liberty order (DoL) under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court to ensure that the care arrangements for 'V' were lawful under the European Convention on Human Rights (the ECHR). 

The High Court had to determine whether the care arrangements for 'V', including the constant supervision and monitoring, constituted a deprivation of liberty under Article 5 of the ECHR. This question required a careful examination of the nature and extent of 'V's care needs and whether the measures taken to meet those needs could be seen as restricting his freedom. The High Court concluded that the restrictions in place did not constitute a deprivation of liberty, as the restrictions were necessary due to 'V's profound disabilities and were not a result of any action by the State. As such, the application for a DoL order was refused by the court. 

This case supports the decision made in Peterborough City Council v SM, in both cases the interpretation of deprivation of liberty under Article 5 ECHR for individuals with profound disabilities is considered. The court concluded in both instances that the individuals were not deprived of their liberty because their inability to leave was due to their disabilities, rather than any action by the State. The court focused on the individuals’ capabilities and the State's role in their care.

Implications and ethical considerations 

This case, subsequent to SM, highlights the importance of distinguishing between necessary care measures and actions that may constitute a deprivation of liberty, providing guidance for local authorities in similar situations. It also sets a precedent for how courts may approach similar situations, balancing the need for intensive care with the protection of individual rights.

This case also re-highlights the important ethical questions about the care of individuals with severe disabilities, which includes, but is not limited to:

1. Balancing care and autonomy: How do we balance the need for intensive care with respect for an individual's autonomy? In 'V's case, the court recognised that his care needs were so significant that constant supervision was necessary, even if it limited his freedom in some ways.
2. Proportionality of care measures: The decision underscores the importance of proportionality in care measures. Care arrangements must be tailored to the individual's specific needs, ensuring that any restrictions on freedom are justified and necessary.

3. Rights of vulnerable individuals: The case reaffirms the commitment to protecting the rights of vulnerable individuals. It emphasises that while care is paramount, it must always be provided in a manner that respects the individual's dignity and rights.

Comment

The case of Re V underscores the fine balance between providing necessary care and safeguarding individual liberties. The decision also reinforces the ethical commitment to respect and protect the rights of vulnerable individuals. As we move forward, this case will continue to assist the court's approach to balancing the care needs of individuals with profound disabilities against their rights under the ECHR. 

You can read our article on the Peterborough City Council v SM decision here.  

Our content explained