The Court of Protection has handed down what appears to be the first reported decision considering the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in AGNI. 

The case concerned P, a young woman with learning disabilities, limited verbal communication and complex emotional needs arising from significant childhood trauma. For many years she had lived with her grandmother but moved into supported living after her grandmother's health deteriorated. The court ultimately had to decide whether it was in P's best interests to remain in supported living or return home, as P lacked mental capacity regarding residence, care and contact arrangements.

Alongside the best interests decision, the court also had to consider whether P's care arrangements amounted to a deprivation of liberty. This involved applying the Supreme Court's judgment in AGNI, which moved away from the long-established Cheshire West "acid test".  Under AGNI, the position is much broader, no single feature is determinative, and the individual's wishes, feelings and ability to give valid consent have a much greater role. You can read our previous blog on this here.

Many will be surprised that the court considered P's supported living placement was very likely to involve a deprivation of liberty. The arrangement did not involve a secure setting, and the judge acknowledged that it was far from the paradigm case of a prison cell. Nevertheless, the court relied on factors including locked external doors, door sensors, window restrictors and the fact that P could not leave without one-to-one support. These features were treated as indicators of objective confinement. Alongside this, P was unable to give valid consent.

The judgment is notable because many expected AGNI to narrow the scope of deprivation of liberty, particularly in supported living and family settings. However, caution is needed before drawing wider conclusions. The court was applying the new test to P's specific circumstances rather than setting out a definitive interpretation of AGNI. As a first-instance decision, it should be viewed as an early indication rather than a definitive roadmap for future cases. 

Commentators have also observed that the outcome is not entirely straightforward to reconcile with the Supreme Court's reasoning in AGNI and that further explanation from the court may have been helpful.

What Oxfordshire County Council v P demonstrates is that deprivation of liberty assessments remain highly fact-sensitive. Questions about restrictions, wishes and feelings, and valid consent are likely to continue generating debate, particularly in supported living and family care arrangements where the boundaries are often less obvious. 

For now, the sector awaits further clarity. The Department of Health and Social Care has stated that guidance will follow the Supreme Court's decision in AGNI. Until then, Oxfordshire County Council v P provides an interesting, albeit tentative, insight into the post-AGNI landscape.

 For more information, please get in touch.