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

Once again, the Home Office has been busy. Having brought in a comprehensive package of regulations, most notably in 2008 and 2012, it now proposes to make further sweeping changes to the way that misconduct and performance procedures are handled....

Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2019
Non-Disclosure Agreements in Financial Remedy Proceedings...

Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019
This article originally appeared in the AvMA Lawyers Service Newsletter (November&nbs...

Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2018