The European Court of Human Rights’ once again considers the position of those who are detained against their wishes as a result of mental illness.
Hilton Harrop-Griffiths considers whether the High Court has jurisdiction to attach a power of arrest to a non-molestation injunction, granted under its inherent jurisdiction, for the benefit of a vulnerable adult.
Joshua Swirsky appeared for the London Borough of Croydon in an important case in the Upper Tribunal which gives general guidance on the use of evidence of dental development in the assessment of age.
R (on the application of GS) v London Borough of Camden  EWHC 1762 (Admin) Issues and background facts In R (GS) v London Borough of Camden  EWHC 1762 (Admin) (“GS”) Marquand J considered the Claimant’s challenge by way of judicial review to the Defendant’s decision, following an assessment under the Care Act 2014 […]
The appeal before the Court arose out of judicial review proceedings brought by C, in her own capacity and as litigation friend for her children, T, M and U, against several decisions taken by the London Borough of Southwark (“Southwark”) to grant the family varying levels of financial support pursuant to section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”).
In the joined cases of DB (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Worcestershire County Council and others; and EC (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) v Worcestershire County Council and others  EWCOP 30 (17 June 2016), Baker J considered whether two Scottish men who had been detained in a hospital in England had established a habitual residence in this jurisdiction so that the Court of Protection would have jurisdiction to make decisions concerning their care and residence under ss.15 and 16 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.