Court of Appeal decision in MIG and MEG - Restrictions on Liberty

Tue, 12 Apr 2011

By Laura Davidson
This article first appeared in Solicitors Journal on 12th April 2011 and is re-published here with kind permission. For more information please visit
It is well established that there are two components to a deprivation of liberty for the purposes of article 5 of the ECHR. There is an objective element (actual confinement, for which the state is responsible, in a particular restricted space for a length of time which is not negligible) and a subjective element – lack of valid capacitous consent.
It is clear that there may be overlap between the elements, and that conditions may only be so restrictive that they amount to a deprivation of liberty when taken cumulatively. But until now it has been thought that the purpose of restrictions is irrelevant when determining whether those restrictions amount to a deprivation
of liberty.
However, a reconsideration of article 5 has been undertaken by the Court of Appeal which shifts this presumption......

Related articles

This article originally appeared in the AvMA Lawyers Service Newsletter (November&nbs...

Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018
Since I posted my Top Ten Tips for experts’ meetings, the recent decision by Mrs Justice Yip i...

Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2018
After the Anthony Bland case in 1993, it became the practice to get the courts to decide whether a p...

Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2018