Carers Week 2014: Human rights inside the courts and everyday advocacy

By Sanchita Hosali and Natalie Therfall at the British Institute of Human Rights

 

This Carers’ Week (9-13 June) we take a look at some important court judgments affirming the human rights of carer givers and care receivers alike. These judgments highlight the role of the Human Rights Act both in challenging poor decisions and its use in the decision making process. But remember it’s not all about the courts, BIHR’s Your Human Rights: A Pocket Guide for Carers is a handy resource to help people in their day-to-day interactions with public services, outlined at the end of this blog.

When the local authority becomes involved in care at home

There have been a number of cases where the proper procedures for altering care arrangements has not been followed. Although this may seem like a box ticking exercise, the result of such procedural failures has been to separate families. In one case a family carer had not been informed where their relative has been taken. The Human Rights Act has important role in such cases, empowering carers to hold services to account when officials have overstepped the mark.

In RR v Milton Keynes Council, an 81 year old woman with dementia was removed from her home without warning and without authorisation. Her son was not informed where she had been taken and their contact was restricted. The court roundly criticised the conduct of the local authority. The authorities had violated the woman’s right to liberty protected by the Human Rights Act (in Article 5) by failing to get the proper authorisation to detain her in a nursing home. They were also found to have violated her right to respect private and family life under the Act (Article 8) by removing her from her home of 30 years and from the family that had been caring for her.

This case bears striking similarities to that of the Neary family who took action against Hillingdon Borough Council; ; where Steven Neary, a young man with learning disabilities cared for by his father, Mark, was taken into respite care and then not allowed to return home for a year. Again the court criticised the conduct of the local authority in this case, which took place 3 years before RR. The court decided that the authorities had violated Steven’s right to liberty by detaining him without authorisation, for a number of months. And both Steven and Mark’s right to respect for private and family life had been violated because Steven had been taken from the family home and they could no longer enjoy life as a family.

As well as the delays sought in authorising depriving Steven of his liberty in the care unit, the court criticised the use of safeguards.. Known as Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS, set out in the Mental Capacity Act 2005), these are intended to safeguard people who have been deprived of their Article 5 right to liberty. Mark Neary, Steven’s father, was quoted in the judgement as saying “safeguards seemed good – the reality didn’t. I didn’t know where I was”. It was clear in Neary that the safeguards had been misused. Here measures which are supposed to ensure respect for the rights of people in care were used as a tool to ensure continued detention, and risks to the right to liberty. Clearly, reason for safeguarding are about ensuring people’s basic rights to liberty and to free from harm, in practice this was forgotten, which is why the Human Rights Act was needed to challenge officials and hold them to account.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

The recent case known as Cheshire West is a significant step in recognising the human rights of those without capacity to make decisions about their own care. It concerned three adults with learning disabilities in ‘home like’ care placements who were none-the-less deprived of their liberty under Article 5. This is because, as the lead judgment by Lady Hale states, disabled people and people who lack capacity to make a decision are still protected by the same universal human rights as the rest of us. As Baroness Hale said, if a care arrangement would deprive her of her liberty, then so too would it deprive the person without capacity of theirs, it doesn’t matter what the intentions behind the deprivation are, or whether the person seems not to protest against the situation:

a gilded cage is still a cage

The case is important for carers. This test about whether a situation is depriving someone of their liberty applies whenever the state becomes involved in the provision of care. Where a local authority assumes responsibility for somebody’s care, they also assume responsibility to properly assess whether their care arrangements deprive that person of their liberty. If they do, then the proper safeguards must be applied. Baroness Hale is quick to emphasise that needing to apply the safeguards to a person’s care is not a bad thing. It is a crucial mechanism for ensuring that the person’s rights are respected while receiving care. The reviews required by the safeguards should be independent assessments which determine whether the persons rights, including to make decisions about what happens to them (Article 8) are respected to the maximum extent possible.

Respecting the wishes of the person in care

A 2013 case highlights importance of taking the wishes of the person in care into account in decisions affecting their life. The substantial issue of the case was whether an older woman with dementia could be allowed to return to live in her home for a trial period. The woman, Mrs Manuela Sykes, a former activist and politician also wished to waive her right to anonymity in order to raise awareness of her experience. The court found that at the time of the case Mrs Sykes lacked the capacity to make that decision for herself, however, taking into account her present wishes and her former strongly held values, it was decided that it was in her best interests to allow her to waive her anonymity: “by nature she is a fighter, a campaigner, a person of passion… she would wish her life to end with a bang not a whimper.”

A recent case from the European Court of Human Rights, McDonald v UK found that a woman forced to use incontinence pads when she was not incontinent had her rights to a private life engaged when she was made to live in a manner which “conflicted with [her] strongly held ideas of self and personal identity”. Once those Article 8 rights were engaged, the local authority providing overnight care had a duty to consider those rights when making their decision or else they would be in breach of them. This case highlights the importance of looking at all care decisions through a human rights lens.

Challenging discrimination against carers

The rights in the Human Rights Act are drawn from the European Court of Human Rights, which is overseen by the European Court of Human Rights. The European Union and the European Court of Justice are completely separate. However, when the ECJ was asked to look at an employment case from the UK involving a carer, they looked at human rights. In Coleman v Attridge Law the ECJ used the ECHR human rights principle of non-discrimination when deciding whether an EU directive prohibiting discrimination against disabled people in employment applied to Sharon Coleman. Sharon, the main carer for her disabled son, worked at a law firm and was denied flexible work arrangements offered to her colleagues without disabled children. The ECJ found that disability discrimination by association is unlawful in the workplace. The case ensured that UK law provides protection against discrimination on the grounds of someone’s association, including caring responsibilities, with a disabled person.

Everyday empowerment and accountability is important tooCarers Guide

Human rights have been relied on in all of the above cases to ensure that lack of capacity or a caring role do not prevent a person from enjoying and exercising their rights. This has been something of a whistle stop tour of recent case law surrounding care, but you can read about some of these cases in more detail on this blog.

Finally, it’s really important to remember human rights are not all about the courts. The Human Rights Act has an important role beyond and before legal action. The law is about our rights and it can empower us to challenge poor treatment and decisions in our everyday interactions with public officials (as well as help officials develop and deliver better services). BIHR’s project work to take human rights into the heart of everyday life has included working with carers and their advocates. In our consultation with n-compass advocacy service in the North East of England:

  • Almost half thought human rights were important to their caring role
  • But less than a third felt confident that they knew what their rights were
  • And only 15% felt confident advocating for the rights of those they cared for

That’s why we produced Your Human Rights: A Pocket Guide for Carers, to help fill that gap. The Pocket Guide is about empowering carer’s with a bit more knowledge about their rights and the rights of those they care for, and carer’s tell us how important this is:

[with BIHR’s Pocket Guide] I feel more empowered and confident on how to challenge, I see human rights can facilitate change (Carer, North East England)

The BIHR guidance helps to equip carers with the knowledge to better secure their rights as well as those of the persons they care for. It’s all about bringing rights home. (Nick Gradwell, carer and expert by expereince)

So this Carers Week let’s spread the word that human rights are what it says on the tin – getting it “right” for all “humans” including carers and those for whom they care.

 

Advertisements

Respecting the right to family life: the Human Rights Act, parents with learning disabilities and access to justice

By Sanchita Hosali and Natalie Threfall at British Institute of Human Rights

“Human beings are social animals. They depend on others. Their family, or extended family, is the group on which many people most heavily depend, socially, emotionally and often financially. There comes a point at which, for some, prolonged and unavoidable separation from this group seriously inhibits their ability to live full and fulfilling lives.” (Huang, 2007)

The right to respect for family life protected by the Human Rights Act (in Article 8) goes to the heart of decisions involving children and care, reminding us to consider the both the rights of a child as an individual and their rights as a member of a family. Yet it is a human right that is often misunderstood in practice (and sometimes maligned in headlines and sound-bites). A recent decision in the family court, Re DE (A Child) [2014] EWFC 6, is a reminder that the local authority and its staff need to understand that consideration of the Human Rights Act is an important part of making fair and lawful decisions that respect the rights of the child and the family.

What happened?

The case concerned D, the child of a couple with learning disabilities. D had been subject to a care plan from birth, and had been living at home with his parents who were supported by the local authority. The local authority had become concerned that D’s welfare was deteriorating and made plans for D to be taken into foster care. This would be followed by a hearing to determine the future of the care plan. The parents’ solicitors asked the courts for an injunction preventing D from being taken into care before the care plan hearing. They said the injunction should be given using powers under the Human Rights Act, because removing D before the hearing was a disproportionate restriction on their right to respect for family life. The first judge rejected this as he did not believe he had the power to grant such an injunction.

Challenging the interim care decision on human rights grounds

At the higher court Mr Justice Baker found that the first judge had limited himself and his powers wrongly when refusing to grant an injunction under the Human Rights Act. Local authorities have a duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act to make sure all their decisions respect the rights in the HRA. In D’s case the authorities had failed to respect the Article 8 rights to the family (discussed below). Therefore the courts, which also have a duty under section 6 to respect human rights in their decision making, can rely on the Human Rights Act to prevent an unjust decision. This means if a judge has the power to grant an injunction, a power which has recently been granted to the family courts, then they can grant an injunction under the Human Rights Act.

Did the care decision therefore violate the rights of D or his parents?

The right to respect for family life is a qualified right, this means officials can restrict this right when there is a law in place to allow such a restriction and when it meets one of the aims set out in the Act, e.g. to protect the rights of others. In any event, any restriction of the right should be proportionate. This means all alternatives should be considered, and the decision maker should not simply jump straight to the most restrictive option.

In cases of removing a child from the family home, looking at the situation through a Human Rights Act lens means recognising that the child and the family have rights which should be respected unless the tests of lawfulness, legitimate aim, and proportionately justify restriction. For example, where a child is at danger of serious harm or neglect the Human Rights Act places a positive obligation on officials to step in and take action (this underpins safeguarding).

In D’s case he was not in immediate danger, nor was there any threat of future danger. Yet he was taken into foster care before the hearing to determine the future of the care plan and the child’s best interests. If, after a full and proper hearing had been carried out, it was found to be in D’s best interests for him to be taken into foster care, the interference with his and his parents’ Article 8 rights would be justified. However, to take him into care when he was not in danger and before evidence could be heard from his parents failed to take the family’s human rights into account.

What does this mean?

D’s case simply (but importantly) clarifies that in such situations parents can apply to the courts for an injunction under the Human Rights Act. Whether the removal decision breached human rights, is a matter which must be decided at a full hearing.

However, it does have a broader significance in reminding officials about the importance of taking human rights into account at every stage of the decision making process. We have blogged before about cases where decisions that drastically alter peoples’ lives have been made before their human rights have been considered and the proper safeguards put in place, such as in RR v Milton Keynes Council where the local authority failed to apply for authorisation to remove an elderly woman from her home. The decision in Re D highlights once again the weight local authorities must put on all rights when making their decisions.

Hold on, there is an access to justice issue too

D’s case also raises access to justice questions, an issue of growing concern with recent changes to legal aid, which have had a particular impact in family and civil cases. Because of the specific nature of the original care plan and the changes that were being enacted, under the Children Act 1989 the family fell into a gap that left them without non-means tested legal aid. As the father had a steady, but low paying job, he was unable to access legal aid and his solicitors and barrister acted pro bono.

Justice Baker highlights this gap as being a real barrier to accessing justice, particularly for adults with learning disabilities involved in care proceedings. Being unable to challenge a local authority’s care decision potentially leaves many families separated and unable to challenge violations to their rights. In particularly serious cases, being unable to contest life altering decisions may also risk falling foul of the right to a fair trial under the Human Rights Act (Article 6), which applies in many civil issues including family law.

At the end of his judgment, Justice Baker specifically calls this point to the attention of the President of the family courts, Sir Justice Munby. This week he made the important decision to suspend proceedings in a case where contact arrangements for a child were complicated by his father’s inability to access representation or translation services (Q v Q).

That case deals with contact arrangements between a father (who was a registered sex offender) and his child. As part of the hearing both sides put their case and evidence to the judge, however in this case legal aid for the father has been discontinued, and without translation or representation he cannot take part in the case. Justice Munby said:

“that there could be circumstances in which, without the assistance of a legally qualified representative, a litigant might be denied [their right to a fair hearing] … these are matters which are required to be investigated in justice not merely to the father, but I emphasise equally importantly to the son, as well as in the wider public interest of other litigants in a similar situation to that of the father here … there is the risk that, if one has a process which is not fair to one of the parents, that unfairness may in the final analysis rebound to the disadvantage of the child.”

As a result, he has suspended proceedings, inviting the Justice Secretary Chris Grayling to intervene in the case and explain how the costs of the case, which is “necessary and fair”, should be met. If necessary, he says, it may be the court, as a public body with a duty to respect human rights as described above, which must meet the costs of the case and ensure access to justice. We await the Minister’s response…

 

 

Human rights law protects dignity in decisions about care

By Sanchita Hosali and Natalie Threlfall

Today the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that a London borough’s withdrawal of night-time care from Ms McDonald breached her human rights for almost a year before proper processes were completed. Significantly, in McDonald v UK the Court found a breach of the right to respect for private and family life in the provision of support services for a disabled person. The Court emphasises the importance the human right to respect for private life places on dignity, a principle which now clearly applies in provision and decisions associated with welfare support.

Removing the overnight carer

The case was brought by Ms McDonald, a former prima ballerina with the Scottish Ballet. Following a stroke Ms McDonald needed help to get around her house and was unable to use the toilet at night. The local authority – Kensington and Chelsea – originally provided Ms McDonald with an overnight carer, however this care package was suddenly withdrawn and she was told instead to use incontinence pads at night. As she was not incontinent Ms McDonald refused to do this, and understandably felt that to act as though she was incontinent was an affront to her dignity.

Making the link to human rights
Ms McDonald ended up taking legal action to challenge this decision, including on the grounds that withdrawal of care was an unjustifiable interference with her right to respect for her private life (Article 8 of the Human Rights Act & European Convention). This right includes ensuring public authorities respect physical and mental well-being, that decision-making is fair and dignified and takes account of the person. Recognising that there are not infinite resources, this right can be limited provided it is a proportionate response to the situation, which means it’s both necessary and lawful.

During the course of legal action, two local authority care plan reviews decided that incontinence pads were practical and appropriate. The UK’s Supreme Court rejected her case, describing the human rights argument as ‘hopeless’, and in 2011 all night-time care was withdrawn.

Seeking justice, the long road to Strasbourg
Ms McDonald’s last avenue for challenging the decision lay with the European Court of Human Rights. The Court reinforced the need for a broad approach to the right to respect for private life. The Court stressed that respect for ‘human dignity and freedom’ are the very essence of the European Convention on Human Rights, notions which will be increasingly significant with an aging population and finite welfare resources. The Court applied the reasoning from the Pretty case, in which a disabled woman, sought to clarify whether her husband would be prosecuted for assisting her to commit suicide. Although a very different set of issues, the European Court today confirmed that dignity is not only relevant to such extreme cases, but is also important in everyday issues such as decisions about care and support services. The Court found that the local authority decision meant Ms McDonald was forced to live in a way that “conflicted with [her] strongly held ideas of self and personal identity” and therefore her case fell within the right to respect for private life.

The outcome for Ms McDonald
Following withdrawal of the care package for overnight assistance, Miss McDonald’s needs were reassessed as being met through the use of incontinence pads. The European Court ruled this was a decision the local authority was entitled to make as they had carefully weighed Miss McDonald’s needs against the economic consequences of paying for an overnight carer. However, crucially, the decision to withdraw overnight care had been made before Miss McDonald’s needs were reassessed. Therefore for the period before the reassessment, the local authority was not meeting its duty to Miss McDonald and had breached her human rights.

Dignity and the right to respect for private life back at home
In this case the later decision to withdraw overnight care was not a breach of Ms McDonald’s rights, because the proper processes were then followed, and whether this is necessary is a decision that best rests with national authorities. However, The European Court’s reliance on the concept of “strongly held ideas of self and personal identity” sends an important signal to the UK courts and local authorities to make sure people’s basic human rights are given proper consideration, and cannot simply be ignored to save money. Today’s decision, although not a resounding victory for Ms McDonald, underlines the potential power of the human rights safety-net to make sure local authorities put the protection of our human rights at the heart of decisions about care and support.

 

Read BIHR’s Press Statement in response to the McDonald case here.

For information on human rights in health and social care, including real life stories of challenge and change which use human rights without court action download BIHR’s The Difference it Makes: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of Health and Care.  You can also download our Human Rights Pocketbook for Carers, Our Human Rights Guide for Older People and tour Mental Health and Human Rights Advocacy guide here.

Enjoyed reading our blog? You can support us through one-off donations or become a BIHR Friend through our regular giving scheme.

BIHR’s work to bring human rights to life in Mind’s membership magazine

Sanchita quote HR about us all

 

BIHR’s Deputy Director Sanchita Hosali was delighted to contribute to the 4-page human rights special in the latest edition of Mind’s Membership Magazine. The special feature takes a look at the Human Rights Act and how it protects people living with mental health problems from injustice and undignified treatment. As our Deputy Director Sanchita explains in the magazine “Human rights are about all of us, they are the basic protections that we should all have. When we give over power to people in positions of authority, human rights can help to give us power back.” 

Our real life stories on how the Human Rights Act helps in everyday life

Highlighting BIHR’s work with NHS Trusts and advocacy groups, including local Minds, the magazine features many of our real life stories on how the Human Rights Act is helping people with mental health issues across the country, simply by providing the language for discussion with services and not having to go to court. Our work helped Mary’s advocate to get her support once she left hospital to make sure her right to life was protected. Being able to talk about the right to liberty meant Amit was able to challenge nurses who kept telling him to stay on the ward even though he was entitled to leave and simply wanted to visit a local coffee shop. These and many other real life stories about the Human Rights Act supporting people living with mental health problems are explained in BIHR’s The Human Rights Act: Changing Lives and our highly acclaimed Mental Health Advocacy and Human Rights: Your Guide, a practical resource for service users and those assisting them.

Our advocacy guide, recently commended by the Care Quality Commission, was co-produced with partners on one of our Human Rights in Healthcare projects, including Mind at Brighton and Hove. As part of the project we helped the group to develop a human rights approach in their advocacy service, it’s great to see the continuing success of the project featured in the Mind Magazine. As Bill Turner, Advocacy Team leader, says “The team now regularly refers to specific rights when speaking to health professionals and service providers, and has invoked the HRA to raise concerns about physical abuse, the withdrawal of medication and the refusal to allow a patient to leave a ward.”

Working with mental health services: prevention rather than cure

The magazine also features BIHR’s work with NHS Trusts to practice prevention rather than cure a put human rights at the heart of services. For example we support Mersey Care NHS Trust to integrate human rights into learning disability and mental health services. This has included innovate work to support staff and to involve patients and carers in decisions, including issues about risk and how the service is run. As Irene Burns-Watts, Service Director, says in the magazine: “What is really powerful is how we have begun to translate human rights into people’s everyday care: supporting people with humanity, dignity and respect. We are beginning to see results, including a reduction in incidents and in the use of both restraint and medication”

Standing up for human rights

The article also looks at hoSanchita explain HRw human rights tend to get a bad press in the UK, with politicians often quick to criticise them. Sanchita explains how this is hardly surprising given that our rights are designed to limit those with power. She also discusses how suggestions that we should alter human rights laws are unhelpful, and what is needed is a genuine debate to increase understanding of human rights: “Before we talk about getting rid of the Human  Rights Act or changing it, let’s look at what it’s really doing.” Sanchita flags up our Annual Human Rights Tour, free pop-up events across the country which give people a place to get information about human rights, to debate and discuss what they really mean, and how this leads to very different conversations. Find out more about bidding for the 2014 Tour to come to your town this Autumn here.

Find our more

You can find out more about what Mind does and becoming a member, including receiving your own regular copy of the full Membership News here.

You can find out more about BIHR’s projects with partner organisations such as Mind Brighton by checking out our Human Rights in Healthcare Project pages here. Our latest resource features lots of real stories, The Difference It Makes: Putting Human Rights at the Heart of Health and Care, is available here. Finally, if you are living with mental health problems or supporting someone who is get your copy of BIHR’s Mental Health Advocacy and Human Rights: Your Guide here.

Capacity, Deprivation of Liberty and Human Rights: “What’s the harm, it’s for their own good?”

At the British Institute of Human Rights this is something we hear a lot, especially when we’re working on the care and treatment received by people with learning disabilities and capacity issues. Usually it’s a question that is well-meaning, but one which reveals deep-grained attitude that fails to recognise the most basic human rights we all have to be treated with equal dignity and respect. On 19 March the Supreme Court confronted this issue when deciding whether the care arrangements for P, MIG and MEG amounted to a deprivation of their right to liberty (also known as the Cheshire West case).[1]

This is an important case. It case is illustrates why and how the Human Rights Act should be the lens through which to view other laws and day to day practices. It has the potential to transform the way people in local authorities and those caring for others (especially involving the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and Mental Capacity Act) make decisions about people’s lives which put the person and their rights at the centre of the process, rather than relying on “best intentions”.

The Care Arrangements of P, MIG and MEG

P was a 38 year old man with Down’s syndrome and cerebral palsy who was cared for by 24 hour staff, in a house along with two other residents. He needed help with all aspects of daily life and went on accompanied trips out of the home almost every day. MIG and MEG were teenage sisters with learning disabilities who had been removed from a neglectful home. MIG lived with a foster mother whom the court noted she adored and MEG lived in an NHS facility for learning disabled adolescents. Both girls attended the same college during the day.Closed window

In MIG’s case she never attempted to leave the foster home by herself but would have been restrained from doing so it she had tried. MEG was sometimes physically restraint and received tranquillising medication. P was sometimes restrained in response to challenging behaviour.

Before the case got to the Supreme Court

The cases started in the Court of Protection, where it was found that P’s arrangements did amount to a deprivation of liberty, but as this was in his best interests it should continue, but with safeguards, including review.  MIG and MEG’s care arrangements were found to be in their best interests and not a deprivation of their liberty, and thus not be subject to review.

The Court of Appeal agreed that MIG and MEG’s were not deprived of Liberty, noting the “relative normality” of their situation. The Court also overturned the decision on P, finding that it was not a deprivation of liberty, introducing the idea of comparing P’s life to that of an adult in a similar situation with similar disabilities.

What the Supreme Court said

In P’s case the Supreme Court was unanimous that his situation amounted to a deprivation of liberty, and by a Logo UK Supreme Courtmajority (4 to 3) they also found the MIG and MEG had been deprived of their liberty. The leading judgement was delivered by Baroness Hale and it well worth the read, making it clear that human rights are universal to all and not lost simply because someone may have capacity issues.

The key point those involved in decision-making and delivery of care arrangements should bear in mind is that the test for whether a person is deprived of their liberty is whether they are “under the complete supervision and control of the staff and not free to leave”. The person’s compliance or lack of objection, the “relative normality” of the placement and the purpose behind it are all irrelevant to this objective question.

So what’s the harm?

Well quite a lot actually. As Lady Hale says in her judgement:

people with disabilities, both mental and physical, have the same human rights as the rest of the human race…This flows inexorably from the universal character of human rights, founded on the inherent dignity of all human beings…Far from disability entitling the state to deny such people human rights: rather it places upon the state (and upon others) the duty to make reasonable accommodation to cater for the special needs of those with disabilities…

“If it would be a deprivation of my liberty to be obliged to live in a particular place, subject to constant monitoring and control, only allowed out with close supervision, and unable to move away without permission even if such an opportunity became available, then it must also be a deprivation of the liberty of a disabled person. The fact that my living arrangements are comfortable, and indeed make my life as enjoyable as it could possibly be, should make no difference. A gilded cage is still a cage. (our emphasis)

Making rights real

Whether this case will indeed transform practice now depends on the extent to which practitioners are made aware not only of this case but of why and how human rights are relevant to their work (and not simply about the legal team). At BIHR we run a range of training and capacity building services and projects and we’ll certainly be raising awareness through our work. We have recently been supporting people and groups to give evidence to the Mental Capacity Act Committee, which found some significant gaps in the protection of people’s human rights. You can read our response to the Committee here and the evidence we submitted here.

Ultimately the British Institute of Human Rights is a charity, with no statutory mandate (or funding) to drive forward work to put human rights at the heart of health and care. That is why we work hard to form partnerships with service providers, practitioner bodies, regulators and advocacy services to help people know and understand their rights and duties and put them into practice (check out our new resource “The Difference it Makes”). Indeed, we were pleased that the Care Quality Commission recently recommended that all advocacy services and detaining authorities should distribute BIHR’s Mental Health Advocacy and Human Rights: Your Guide.

As the new structures for health and social care take root, we very much hope to work with NHS England, the Department of Health, CCGs and others involved in the system, to make sure that people’s basic rights are respected and protected.


[1] P v Cheshire West and Chester Council [2014] UKSC 19