— The High Court decided that SM was not deprived of her liberty under Article 5 because the reason that she could not leave was her profound disabilities rather than any action of the State (whether by restraining her or by failing to meet the a positive obligations to enable her to leave). She was both physically incapable of exercising her right to liberty, and mentally incapable of asserting it. The Supreme Court in Cheshire West did not deal with the situation of a child such as SM who is incapable of leaving because of a combination of her physical and mental disabilities rather than by reason of any restraints placed upon her. The judge noted: "On a conceptual level it is difficult to see how one can be deprived of something that one is incapable of doing." This common sense approach will not be popular in the legal profession.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_SM:_Peterborough_City_Council_v_Mother_(2024)_EWHC_493_(Fam)?id=060225-1249