Making sense of Cheshire West

In 2014 the UK Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether three people with intellectual disabilities were deprived of their liberty. Each of these people were living in 'post-carceral' care settings in the community: a small care home, supported living and in foster care. The Supreme Cour...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Series, Lucy
Format: eBook
Language:English
Published: Oxford, UK Hart Publishing 2020, 2020
Online Access:
Collection: National Center for Biotechnology Information - Collection details see MPG.ReNa
LEADER 01735naa a2200241 u 4500
001 EB002166478
003 EBX01000000000000001304256
005 00000000000000.0
007 tu|||||||||||||||||||||
008 230704 r ||| eng
100 1 |a Series, Lucy 
245 0 0 |a Making sense of Cheshire West  |h Elektronische Ressource  |c Lucy Series 
260 |a Oxford, UK  |b Hart Publishing  |c 2020, 2020 
300 |a 1 PDF file (12 pages) 
505 0 |a Includes bibliographical references 
740 0 2 |a The legacies of institutionalisation 
041 0 7 |a eng  |2 ISO 639-2 
989 |b NCBI  |a National Center for Biotechnology Information 
500 |a Selected chapter of the book: The legacies of institutionalisation : disability, law and policy in the 'deinstitutionalised' community / editors, Claire Spivakovsky, Linda Steele, Penelope Weller. London : Hart Publishing, 2020 
856 4 0 |u https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559396  |3 Volltext 
082 0 |a 340 
082 0 |a 140 
520 |a In 2014 the UK Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether three people with intellectual disabilities were deprived of their liberty. Each of these people were living in 'post-carceral' care settings in the community: a small care home, supported living and in foster care. The Supreme Court ruled that they were, and the resultant 'acid test' of deprivation of liberty under UK law means that over 300,000 people living in the community are considered to be detained and requiring legal safeguards. This chapter analyses the ruling in its historical context and in light of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It suggests future avenues for addressing some of the judgment's more paradoxical and troubling consequences