Abstract
<strong><strong><em></em></strong></strong><p align="LEFT">In the matter of DE (an adult patient) …. and JE v (1) DE (by his litigation friend, the Official Solicitor) (2) Surrey County Council</p><p>[2006] EWHC Fam 3459 (Munby J)</p><strong><em></em></strong><em></em>
Highlights
In October 2004, in the case of HL v UK2, the European Court held that the provisions of the Mental Health Act that allowed incapacitated, compliant individuals to be detained in hospital informally were unlawful, in that there were no detention criteria, there was no formal detention process, and there was no right of access to a Court which could overturn the decision to detain
May 2007 deprived of their liberty could have their care altered so that they were merely having restrictions placed on their liberty, which would not attract any ECHR requirements for legal safeguards or formal procedures
The case of JE v DE and Surrey CC7 shines a bright light on a situation that is, aside from circumstantial details, probably only unusual because of the determination of the detained man’s wife to challenge what was happening
Summary
In October 2004, in the case of HL v UK2, the European Court held that the provisions of the Mental Health Act that allowed incapacitated, compliant individuals to be detained in hospital informally were unlawful, in that there were no detention criteria, there was no formal detention process, and there was no right of access to a Court which could overturn the decision to detain. This was a terrific step forward in the quest to provide legal safeguards for vulnerable people informally detained in institutions. The guidance set out the ways in which those caring for such patients could try and ensure that anyone being
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
