The UK Supreme Court has delivered one of the most significant legal developments in health and social care practice for more than a decade.
On 2 June 2026, the Court published a judgment that fundamentally changes how deprivation of liberty should be understood and assessed across the UK. The decision overturns key aspects of the well-known Cheshire West judgment, which has guided practice since 2014, and introduces a new approach that places greater emphasis on individual circumstances, wishes and feelings, and professional judgement.
For providers, managers, practitioners, commissioners, and safeguarding professionals, this is not simply a legal update. It has important implications for day-to-day practice, assessment processes, care planning, organisational policies, and staff training.
A Brief Reminder: What Was Cheshire West?
For the past twelve years, deprivation of liberty assessments have largely been guided by the “acid test” established by the Supreme Court in the Cheshire West case.
The test asked two simple questions:
- Is the person under continuous supervision and control?
- Is the person free to leave?
If the answer to both questions suggested significant restrictions, the arrangements were likely to amount to a deprivation of liberty.
While the Cheshire West judgment helped create greater consistency, many practitioners felt that it could lead to situations where people receiving care in ordinary and supportive environments were nevertheless considered deprived of their liberty because of the legal interpretation applied.
The Supreme Court has now concluded that the Cheshire West approach was incorrect and that determining whether a person is deprived of their liberty requires a broader and more nuanced assessment.
What Has Changed?
The most significant change is that there is no longer a single “acid test” for determining deprivation of liberty.
Instead, professionals must now undertake a multifactorial assessment that considers the overall circumstances of the individual and the arrangements in place. No single factor is decisive. Rather, practitioners must consider a range of factors together before reaching a conclusion.
These factors include:
- The nature and type of restrictions being imposed
- The duration of those restrictions
- The effect of the restrictions on the individual
- The way restrictions are implemented
- Whether the person objects to the arrangements
- How closely the situation resembles detention
- The relative normality of the arrangements
- The purpose of the restrictions, including whether they are intended for care and protection rather than punishment or coercion
This means practitioners can no longer rely on a simple checklist or formula. Instead, they must consider the person’s overall lived experience and the practical reality of their situation.
The Growing Importance of Wishes and Feelings
One of the most important aspects of the judgment is the recognition that a person’s wishes and feelings carry significant weight.
The Court clarified that an individual may be able to express valid consent to their arrangements even where they lack legal capacity to make certain decisions under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The key consideration is whether the person has sufficient understanding of their situation and can communicate that they are content with, or accept, the arrangements.
This does not mean professionals can assume consent simply because a person appears compliant.
Instead, practitioners must actively explore questions such as:
- Does the person understand what is happening around them?
- Can they express a view about their care and living arrangements?
- Are they content with those arrangements?
- Are there barriers affecting their ability to communicate their wishes?
- Is medication, fear, pressure, or dependency influencing their responses?
The judgment encourages a far more person-centred approach that focuses on understanding the individual’s experience rather than simply assessing their compliance.
Objection Matters
Another significant development is the Court’s recognition that objection is highly relevant when considering deprivation of liberty.
The Cheshire West judgment suggested that a person’s lack of objection was largely irrelevant to the legal assessment. The Supreme Court has now rejected that approach.
Where a person objects to their arrangements, this strongly suggests that restrictions may be imposed against their will and therefore may amount to a deprivation of liberty. Conversely, where a person is capable of expressing a view and appears genuinely content with the arrangements, this may be an important factor within the overall assessment.
Objection may take many forms, including:
- Attempts to leave
- Refusal of care or treatment
- Distress associated with restrictions
- Physical resistance
- Behaviour indicating unhappiness with arrangements
- Situations where restraint or intensive supervision is required to maintain the arrangements
This reinforces the importance of careful observation, recording, communication, and professional curiosity.
What Does This Mean for Providers?
The judgment has implications across the entire health and social care sector.
It is relevant to:
- Adult social care services
- Care homes
- Supported living services
- Supported accommodation providers
- Community-based support services
- Hospitals
- Mental health services
- Learning disability services
- Children’s social care services
- Education and residential settings supporting individuals with additional needs
Organisations should begin reviewing how deprivation of liberty is considered within their services. Policies, procedures, assessment tools, training materials, referral pathways, and public-facing information may all require updating to reflect the new legal framework.
Managers should also ensure staff understand that deprivation of liberty assessments can no longer rely solely on the previous acid test and that a more holistic and professionally reasoned approach is now required.
Why This Matters Beyond Deprivation of Liberty
While the judgment focuses specifically on deprivation of liberty, its implications extend much further.
At its heart, the decision raises fundamental questions about how health and social care services balance safety, protection, autonomy, choice, dignity, and human rights.
Every day, professionals make decisions about supervision, risk management, access to the community, behavioural support, medication, restrictions, safeguarding interventions, and independence. The judgment reminds us that these decisions should always be proportionate, person-centred, and carefully justified.
It also reinforces the importance of listening to people, understanding their wishes and feelings, and recognising that good care is not simply about keeping people safe, it is also about enabling people to live meaningful lives with as much freedom and autonomy as possible.
Looking Ahead
The Department of Health and Social Care has confirmed that additional guidance will be published to support implementation of the judgment. NHS England has also announced plans to update its Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards learning resources.
In the meantime, providers should take steps to familiarise themselves with the judgment, review existing practices, and ensure that staff understand the changes and their practical implications.
The sector is likely to experience a period of adjustment as organisations, local authorities, hospitals, and care providers adapt to the new framework. However, the judgment also presents an opportunity to strengthen person-centred practice and ensure that decisions affecting people’s liberty, rights, and independence are grounded in a more individualised understanding of their circumstances.
Further Learning
Many of the themes arising from this judgment will be explored during Social Care Skills’ upcoming online seminar:
Balancing Safety, Rights and Freedom in Health and Social Care
25 August 2026
This practical seminar will examine how professionals can balance safeguarding responsibilities, positive risk-taking, autonomy, human rights, and organisational accountability. Through discussion, case examples, and practical guidance, participants will explore how to make defensible decisions that promote both safety and independence across a range of health and social care settings.
As further guidance emerges, Social Care Skills will continue to provide updates, resources, and learning opportunities to support professionals across the sector.
