UK charities warn of 'risks' to disabled people if legal safeguards are rolled back

UK charities have warned that “severely disabled people could be neglected or harmed” if the UK government succeeds in a court challenge to overturn key legal protections for people who lack the capacity to consent to their care.

Three major organisations – Mencap, Mind, and the National Autistic Society – have warned that the government’s intervention is “deeply troubling” and risks the freedom and safety of thousands, British media reported.

Here’s the lowdown on the UK’s Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) issue:

Q: What are the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS)?

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, or DoLS, are legal protections designed to ensure that vulnerable people — typically those with severe learning disabilities or dementia — are not unlawfully deprived of their freedom while receiving care.

They apply when a person in a care home, hospital, or supported living setting has restrictions placed on what they can do or where they can go for their own safety.

Q: Who decides whether someone’s liberty can be restricted?

If a care institution needs to limit a person’s freedom for safety reasons, it must apply to the local council for authorisation.

The council’s role is to determine whether the restrictions are necessary, proportionate, and in the person’s best interests.

Q: Why are DoLS important?

DoLS are designed to make sure that any deprivation of liberty happens safely, lawfully, and only when absolutely necessary.

They aim to protect vulnerable people from being confined or restricted without oversight or justification.

As the law states, these safeguards ensure that “a care home, hospital or supported living arrangement only deprives someone of their liberty in a safe and correct way, and that this is only done when it is in the best interests of the person and there is no other way to look after them.”

Q: What is the government challenging in court?

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) is asking the UK Supreme Court to overturn its 2014 Cheshire West ruling, which expanded the definition of what it means to be “deprived of liberty.”

The department argues that the judgment was “wrongly decided” and has created an “unsustainable administrative burden” on the health and social care system.

Q: What did the Cheshire West ruling decide?

The 2014 decision established the so-called “acid test” for determining deprivation of liberty:

If a person is under continuous supervision and control, is not free to leave, and cannot consent, they are considered deprived of their liberty.

These safeguards typically apply to individuals with severe learning disabilities or dementia in care homes, rehabilitation units, or supported living arrangements.

Q: Why are these safeguards important?

According to the charities’ joint statement:

“The existing ruling provides key safeguards for people in highly restrictive settings… The protections make sure people have someone to advocate on their behalf, that they can challenge their living arrangements, and that their care needs are dictated by what’s best for them, not the convenience of others.”

They argue that rolling back these safeguards would weaken the rights of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

Q: What has been the impact of the ruling since 2014?

The number of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications has surged — reaching 332,455 in 2023–24, compared with just a few thousand a decade ago.

This has led to a backlog of over 123,000 cases, with critics calling the system “overly bureaucratic” and burdensome.

Q: What did the Law Commission report?

In 2017, UK media reported that people with dementia and learning difficulties were being detained in care without proper checks, according to findings by the Law Commission.

The independent legal body said the system meant to safeguard people’s liberty was “failing” and unable to keep up with demand.

The Law Commission said the crisis stemmed from a 2014 Supreme Court ruling that broadened the definition of who was covered by DoLS.

That decision dramatically increased the number of people considered deprived of their liberty, overwhelming local authorities and health services.

Q: How bad was the situation?

The report found that services could not cope with the surge in cases.
Legal deadlines were “routinely breached,” meaning many people were detained without the independent checks required by law.

Q: What is the government proposing instead?

The Law Commission called for the replacement of the existing system and for decision-makers to place greater emphasis on a person’s wishes and feelings -- when making care decisions under the Mental Capacity Act.

It urged reforms to make the process more efficient and "person-centred" while still protecting individuals’ rights.

The DHSC, for its part, says it wants to shift the focus from a legal “acid test” to one based on an individual’s known wishes and feelings.

It plans to consult on replacing DoLS with Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) — a new system designed to “streamline processes and reduce backlogs.”

Care Minister Stephen Kinnock described DoLS as a “broken system” involving “intrusive assessments” that distress families, promising reforms would deliver “the best protections and safeguards possible.”

Q: How does Northern Ireland factor into this case?

The challenge stems from a case brought by the Attorney General of Northern Ireland (AGNI), who seeks to revise the region’s DoLS framework to consider a person’s wishes and feelings even if they lack full capacity.

AGNI’s counsel, Tony McGleenan KC, argued:

“That wider definition… would mean that fewer people aged 16 and above with impaired decision-making capacity would be regarded as deprived of their liberty.”

However, charities said such a change is “far too important a change to be done by the back door.”

Q: How has the DHSC responded to the criticism?

A DHSC spokesperson said:

“The department can’t comment on the details of active legal proceedings. We have a responsibility to ensure the legal framework operates effectively and we are committed to protecting the rights and safeguarding of all people, including those with learning disabilities and autism.”

Q: What happens next?

The Supreme Court’s justices have reserved judgment, meaning a decision will be handed down at a later date, according to British media.