— The judge in this case applied but was scathing about the Supreme Court's AGNI judgment. A succinct summary included some detail about these principles: Non-secure environments matter; Purpose matters; Relative normality matters; Protective motivation matters; Objection and consent matter profoundly. AR was subject to "24-hour waking one-to-one support, two-to-one staffing for community access, locked external doors, locked garden gate, window restrictors, physical intervention/redirection, continuous supervision, staff control of access to the community, structured daily routine, prompting and encouragement, Positive Behaviour Support, use of preferred items and activities, management of transitions, CCTV monitoring, highly skilled staff team (rather than family) and, communication support (as part of restrictions)". The judge accepted the consensus that "objection from anyone other than P is not relevant to whether P was deprived of his liberty" but noted that it could have knock-on effects increasing the intensity of restrictions. Applying the relevant principles, the "objective element" was not met and so there was no Article 5 deprivation of liberty. Obiter, if the objective element had been met then so too would been the subjective element, as AR would not be able to give valid consent. The LA had agreed to fund a Care Act advocate for 12 months; there was no need to order a review to protect AR's Article 8 rights, though an application could be made to court to resolve a dispute.
Full details available at: https://www.mentalhealthlaw.co.uk/Re_AR_(Whether_restrictions_amount_to_a_deprivation_of_liberty)_(2026)_EWCOP_45_(T2)?id=040926-2146