The Court of Protection has held that a local authority which accepted an autistic man into respite care for a few weeks and then kept him for a year acted unlawfully.
Steven Neary, who is 21 years old and has autism and a severe learning disability, requires constant supervision and support.
Hillingdon local authority kept Steven in the care unit because its care staff had concerns about his behaviour and weight.
In London Borough of Hillingdon v Neary [2011] All ER (D) 57 (Jun), Mr Peter Jackson praised the persistence of Steven’s father, Mark, in standing up for his son’s interests.
He also praised the level of care provided by Hillingdon, which works with 1,300 adults with disabilities, and has provided daytime support carers, fortnightly respite care, social work support and residential assessment.
“Even during that year Steven received committed care, and Mr Neary would be the first to say that some tremendous results were achieved during what was otherwise an unhappy time for all,” he said.
However, he held that Hillingdon breached Steven’s Art 8 right to respect for his family life, and Art 5(1) right to liberty.
Jackson J said: “I find that Steven was deprived of liberty throughout the year.
“I reject its case that Mr Neary consented. The authorisations relied upon were flawed, and even if they had been valid, they would not in themselves have amounted to lawful authority for keeping Steven at the support unit.”
Had Hillingdon succeeded, he said, Steven “would have faced a life in public care that he did not want and does not need”.
John Wadham, legal group director at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which intervened in the case, said: “Public bodies—such as care providers and hospitals—must pay better attention to the human rights of people in their care if they are to protect vulnerable adults and improve service standards.”
During the case, journalists were allowed into the Court of Protection for the first time.
