Supreme Court ruling jeopardises disabled rights

National charities Mencap, Mind, and the National Autistic Society have reacted with alarm to today’s Supreme Court ruling that removes the framework known as Cheshire West. They warn that it strips fundamental human rights protections from potentially hundreds of thousands of severely disabled people who are potentially deprived of their liberty. This landmark ruling dismantles the universal "acid test" established in 2014, which governed when a disabled person is entitled to safeguards under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These safeguards included independent assessments of individuals living in restrictive settings, ensuring their arrangements are both safe and in their best interests.

The judgment introduces a "multifactorial approach" to determine deprivation of liberty, which significantly deviates from the previous standard. It now allows social workers or carers to define restrictions as "normal" for people with disabilities, potentially disregarding the rights of many vulnerable individuals. If a person appears content with their care arrangements, their non-resistance may be interpreted as consent, leading to a reduction in legal protections previously guaranteed under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The charities warn that the ruling could pave the way for abuse and neglect, with one representative stating, “This judgement sets us back decades and removes safeguards that history shows us are vital for disabled people.” They emphasise that the removal of independent checks and automatic access to legal aid closes the gateway to justice for those most in need.

The court’s decision is expected to significantly reduce the number of individuals classified as deprived of their liberty, resulting in fewer legal protections and oversight. "We are calling on the UK government to act with urgency to issue interim guidance," the charities stress, advocating for new legislation to reinstate vital protections.

Under the new rules, vulnerable groups, including those with profound cognitive disabilities and serious mental health issues, may no longer qualify for essential independent reviews. For instance, individuals admitted to mental health wards who lack the capacity to consent will also lose necessary protections, leaving them vulnerable to restrictive practices without oversight.

The impact of this ruling is profound and troubling, with charities and advocates standing in solidarity with those affected by the decision. They contend that the judgement undermines the rights and dignity of disabled people, urging a prompt governmental response to avert potential chaos in care settings across the UK.