Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

DoLS was introduced in 2009 after the Bournewood case (HL v United Kingdom). It requires authorisation when a person who lacks capacity is deprived of their liberty for care or treatment. The supervisory body (council or health board) commissions six assessments and authorises for up to 12 months. The person has a Relevant Person's Representative and an IMCA. Authorisations can be challenged in the Court of Protection. The Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS) under MC(A)A 2019 will replace DoLS — implementation deferred indefinitely from October 2024.

In practice, whether someone is deprived of their liberty is decided by the acid test set out by the Supreme Court in Cheshire West: is the person under continuous supervision and control, and are they not free to leave? Both limbs must be met. It does not matter that the placement is kind, that the person is not objecting, or that the family agrees — a compliant, contented resident who would be brought back if they walked out is still deprived of their liberty and still needs authorisation.

Worked example: Doris moves into a care home with a keypad door she cannot operate, staff who accompany her whenever she goes out, and a care plan authorising staff to return her if she tries to leave. The home applies to the council as supervisory body for a standard authorisation and, because it needs to act immediately, grants itself an urgent authorisation for up to seven days. The council commissions the assessments, including a best interests assessment, and authorises the arrangements for a set period with conditions — in Doris's case, weekly access to the garden and a review of her sedating medication. Her son is appointed her relevant person's representative, and both he and Doris are entitled to a paid representative or an advocate to help them use the challenge route.

The pitfalls matter because they gate the right to challenge. DoLS only covers hospitals and care homes; a deprivation in supported living, a shared lives placement or a person's own home must be authorised by the Court of Protection instead. Anyone can ask for a review at any time, and section 21A of the Act gives a right to apply to the Court of Protection with non-means-tested legal aid — a right that is frequently unused because nobody explains it. Conditions attached to an authorisation are binding, so a home that ignores them is acting unlawfully. And a long backlog for assessments does not make an unauthorised deprivation lawful.

DoLS sits within the Mental Capacity Act 2005, follows a best interests decision, requires an IMCA in defined circumstances, and is challenged in the Court of Protection. Read our guides to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and the Liberty Protection Safeguards.